Round 11 V Hawks.

[NMWBloods]

That's a hard one to answer, I don't think the football was high quality but it still doesn't mean the game was not of a high quality, but for other reasons.

Yes, it can be high quality in the respect of the intensity or commitment (and it was for large periods after quarter time). And the odd game where it is low scoring and hard and intense, can be entertaining. However, quality football includes those aspects plus football skills, which include disposal, making and kicking goals. For a high quality game, particularly for neutral observers, you typically need a fairly high number of goals scored. As I said, it is after all the name of the game and it is one of the things spectators love to see. After all, the game is about entertainment.

I would be interested to hear your thoughts on Carlton NMWBloods.

Denis has released the shackles and they are kicking cricket scores at present with what is essentially very un-accountable football that won't win them a finals game.

Is that good for their development or for the team in the future?

It's very good for getting them to enjoy their football and build confidence. Pagan will know that it won't win them finals games, but they are a long way from finals yet. He wants them to enjoy their football and feel comfortable playing it. The defensive aspects can be gradually introduced.

[NMWBloods]

And while I'm not really an advocate of high-scoring games being more enthralling than tight, close contest, I understand why some others are.

There's no reason why a high scoring game can't also be a tight, close contest with plenty of hardness and intensity.

But recent history says that shoot outs don't win premierships - teams have to be able to play tight and tough as well as kick goals in a hurry.

Yes, I agree. Defensive football is the absolute key to winning premierships. That doesn't necessarily mean low-scoring arm wrestles though. Most teams have built that on the back of good defensive units. The Swans have built it on clogging the game up, forcing stoppages and reducing the number of possessions. I don't find that particularly entertaining and I can see why many neutral supporters find large periods of Swans games rather boring (and why criticism gets levelled at other teams doing similar things).

I'd also note that in the 9 grand finals from 1996 to 2004, the average number of goals for the winning side was 17. Excluding the wet GF of 2002, no winning side has kicked less than 15 goals.

[SimonH]

Without wanting to give the Ch 10 commentary team unnecessary kudos, they did say late in the game that the game had a finals-style atmosphere to it. And from several hundred kilometres away, that seemed to be right.

Sure, it wouldn't have been a very good final (strange maybe, more than out-and-out bad), but it was an excellent example of the type of pressure you have to absorb, and the ability to stem the opposition's momentum that you have to display, to win in September.

[NMWBloods]

Yes - and that wasn't a bad call - and as I said, I think that's the main reason why we won, and why it will be a very beneficial outing for the development of the Hawks.

[SimonH]

In theory yes, but it's amazing how teams can go backwards/lose the plot just when you think they've matured into a hard-to-beat professional unit. Hawthorn post-2001 being a good example. A more recent example is Freo 2006-- I thought that a very creditable high-pressure away PF performance, coming off 10 wins in a row, would mean they could roll their excellent form into 2007. They've done anything but, and have reverted to being soft as butter on the road.

The Hawks will bash up a few cellar dwellers and trouble a few good teams for the rest of this year, but I'll very confidently predict they won't make the top 4, and as such will be there for little more than nuisance value (and experience) come the finals. With the team that is now coming together, they should be around the mark to challenge for a flag in 2008/9... but only a fool would try to predict that they'll actually make a GF. With the squad St Kilda have/had, they should have won a bare minimum of one flag in the 2004-6 period (and should be a top 4 team in 2007).

[voodooguru]

Mc Veigh in " really poor form" ...REALLY poor player more like it.

Last year, JMc kicked 21 goals (21-9), and was equal-10th in Bob Skilton Medal. In his unglorious role as a defensive mid-fielder, he plays on some of the best players running around.

Like many of our players, he has been down on form. I thought he played a better game against the Hawks, and given his youth and his performance last year, there's every chance the selection committee's persistence will be rewarded.

[ernie koala]

Not by itself, but you don't get a lot of high quality games with few goals, especially given that is an essential part of the game.

Except every game we've played against the Beagles last 3 years ....and plenty of others.
Goals kicked does not = quality...Unless ofcourse you don't think defence is a quality

[NMWBloods]

Except every game we've played against the Beagles last 3 years ....and plenty of others.

They're exciting because they're close. They're not necessarily high quality in terms of football skills. Ask most neutral supporters about the quality of the football in those games.

Goals kicked does not = quality...Unless ofcourse you don't think defence is a quality

Perhaps improve your comprehension skills - I did not say lots of goals automatically means high quality. I deliberately made that point - it's even in the post you quoted!!

Winning 20 goals to 19 is more often than not a high quality game, but it's relatively rare though that winning 9 goals to 8 is a high quality match. Actually, the only people I've ever heard talking up regular low-scoring games are Sydney people.

[ROK Lobster]

the only people I've ever heard talking up regular low-scoring games are Sydney people.

It's the League heritage.

[swansrule100]

They're exciting because they're close. They're not necessarily high quality in terms of football skills. Ask most neutral supporters about the quality of the football in those games.

Perhaps improve your comprehension skills - I did not say lots of goals automatically means high quality. I deliberately made that point - it's even in the post you quoted!!

Winning 20 goals to 19 is more often than not a high quality game, but it's relatively rare though that winning 9 goals to 8 is a high quality match. Actually, the only people I've ever heard talking up regular low-scoring games are Sydney people.

They are also exciting because theyve been finals and grand finals against the eagles, then round 1 just had a big build up.

I know what your saying, really the 2005 grand final was a tad boring until the last bits (just being a swans supporter you kind of dont care)
2006 which im reluctant to watch was probably a bit more exciting which was related to the fact it was higher scoring, one team did a reasonable amount of scoring in the first half the other came storming back.

The majority of memorable matches in the afl at least have one side reach 100, the unique feature of our code is the high scoring compared to soccer and rugby.

[nomae]

was it just me, or did the hawthorn cheer squad (sitting behind the goals) seem like complete d##ks on saturday?
yes, yes i know cheer squads always shout abuse at opposing teams but the hawks supporters seemed to go absolutely ballistic whenever one of our boys would collect the ball.

[ernie koala]

Perhaps improve your comprehension skills - I did not say lots of goals automatically means high quality. I deliberately made that point - it's even in the post you quoted!!

Are you a politician NMWB ?? Obviously you were talking generally,as was I, the word automatically was not used by me.
Your general view is that games with more goals are higher quality.
I comprehend and I disagree

[NMWBloods]

Are you a politician NMWB ?? Obviously you were talking generally,as was I, the word automatically was not used by me.
Your general view is that games with more goals are higher quality.
I comprehend and I disagree

The part I was responding to was "Goals kicked does not = quality". I didn't say that it was the case that "Goals kicked = quality", just that it is far more likely.

If a game was won 6 goals to 3 in perfect conditions, would anyone think it could be a high quality match?

[Jeffers1984]

was it just me, or did the hawthorn cheer squad (sitting behind the goals) seem like complete d##ks on saturday?
yes, yes i know cheer squads always shout abuse at opposing teams but the hawks supporters seemed to go absolutely ballistic whenever one of our boys would collect the ball.

haha yep i did notice how feral they were during a kick in. The Eski had a word to say to one of the fugly poo and wee supporters that was yelling abuse at him.