Why did everyone hate Hardingham's game so much? Yes he made some clangers by foot but he kicked 2 goals at crucial stages of the game and curbed Thomas when sent back late.
I'd play Dempsey or Winders as the sub for Z.Merrret as the out if either are fit.
because his good is pretty good, but his bad is very bad. He ends up negating any good he does by the bad he does.
That being said at the end of the day he prolly ended up in front on friday night, but in a game where turnovers are so crucial you can't rely on someone who is so hit and miss.
you could argue his mistakes in the first were helpful to the momentum shift late in the first qtr. yes redeemed himself with a couple of goals and his shutting down of thomas later in the game.
I just don't think long term you can carry a guy who's disposal leads to so many turnover goals as hardy does.
I've noticed most of the shocking turnovers come when he tries to come inboard or be too cute. Should be told to go long down the line to a contest when he strays outside our forward 50.
Fark the AFL, put him in Jetta's jumper, he's not likely to be using it anytime soon. But seriously, would be good to have his never say die mentality out there.
The only concern I’ve got for this game is that it’ll be the first year we’ll try and beat them at their own game. Keeping off with skillful short game and pressure the other way. This in itself is not concerning. However Bomber’s surprise that we did it so well against Norf is. Hawks will bring 10x the pressure the softcocks did and if we don’t get it right it’ll be turnover city. Remember the stat that had all Norths early goals coming from turnovers.
A bonus is Buddy is not there to got full retard on us despite his form so our back line match ups should be much better.
Anyone that comes in cannot proceed to butcher it. It seems overly simple and a little trite but it’s the way I see it.
Who on earth would call for Hardingham's omission.
He would have been in the club's best 10 players on the night.
Crazy talk.
The guy can not kick.
I am a fan of his but his kicking cost us two goals. That's not acceptable
No it's not. He can kick though, but it's the short kick off no forward movement that he regularly shanks low and to his left. That kick should be deleted from his repertoire.
Who on earth would call for Hardingham's omission.
He would have been in the club's best 10 players on the night.
Crazy talk.
The guy can not kick.
I am a fan of his but his kicking cost us two goals. That's not acceptable
Two goals plus made thomas invisible in the 4th. I reckon he deserves one more week. Plus those two kicks that were turnovers were from him kicking to the corridor, I don't think bomber won't mind that since that's the game plan.
I never thought Id here myself say this but who are we going to put on Bruest. He is very damaging and gets under the radar. Baggers Id assume. God I love Baggers
Who on earth would call for Hardingham's omission.
He would have been in the club's best 10 players on the night.
Crazy talk.
The guy can not kick.
I am a fan of his but his kicking cost us two goals. That's not acceptable
No it's not. He can kick though, but it's the short kick off no forward movement that he regularly shanks low and to his left. That kick should be deleted from his repertoire.
That's pretty much it. That 'weight on the back foot' little chip pass is his real issue.
I like him in the team, but he has to learn to play to his strengths (of which he has quite a few). Surely he has worked out by now that he should leave the quick precision kicking to the experts.
Who on earth would call for Hardingham's omission.
He would have been in the club's best 10 players on the night.
Crazy talk.
The guy can not kick.
I am a fan of his but his kicking cost us two goals. That's not acceptable
Do you realise that 60 to 70% of goals come from opposition turnovers. And that only about 40% of turnovers result in scores. Going by this logic teams would have about 10 per side if you dropped all the turnover merchants.
Who on earth would call for Hardingham's omission.
He would have been in the club's best 10 players on the night.
Crazy talk.
The guy can not kick.
I am a fan of his but his kicking cost us two goals. That's not acceptable
Do you realise that 60 to 70% of goals come from opposition turnovers. And that only about 40% of turnovers result in scores. Going by this logic teams would have about 10 per side if you dropped all the turnover merchants.
O in that case I would not drop him then. Thanks Yaco
Hawthorn is the only team that destroyed us in 2013. We usually do well with inside 50's,though usually not as efficient as we should be. The Hawks beat us on this count by about 20 or 25. The number one aim is to get a similar amount of inside 50 entries.
Who on earth would call for Hardingham's omission.
He would have been in the club's best 10 players on the night.
Crazy talk.
The guy can not kick.
I am a fan of his but his kicking cost us two goals. That's not acceptable
Do you realise that 60 to 70% of goals come from opposition turnovers. And that only about 40% of turnovers result in scores. Going by this logic teams would have about 10 per side if you dropped all the turnover merchants.
Malceski, Hanneberry, and O'Keefe all in top 10 clangers last year. All from Sydney.
Gary Ablett Jnr was also in 4th position, Nat Fyfe #1, and Dane Swan number 6.
Who on earth would call for Hardingham's omission.
He would have been in the club's best 10 players on the night.
Crazy talk.
The guy can not kick.
I am a fan of his but his kicking cost us two goals. That's not acceptable
Two goals plus made thomas invisible in the 4th. I reckon he deserves one more week. Plus those two kicks that were turnovers were from him kicking to the corridor, I don't think bomber won't mind that since that's the game plan.
I was 50-50 on his game until he shat on Thomas in the last.
It's our horrible sheedy esque zone that gets us killed vs the hawks.
They have the precision kicks to pass to short leads and our players showed during the pre-season they were perfectly happy to trail their men to the ball as long as they stayed in their designated "zone area".
It was this trail-my-opponent bullshit in 2005 that saw teams lackadaisically pass the ball the entire length of the field to players with essendon players trotting behind them giving them metres on the lead because of the "zone" and "defending space"
Just looked like lazy defense to me and it was INFURIATING
If Licha is fully fit, bring him in. Otherwise I think we should back in the players who did the job this week.
We're certainly going to need to find another gear to come close to the hawks, but friday night showed that we have the to skill starve the opposition of the ball. It's a massive challenge, but if we can put them under pressure and keep our nerve when we've got the ball, there's no reason we can't win. (although after recent encounters, a close and competitive game would be greatly appreciated)
Who on earth would call for Hardingham's omission.
He would have been in the club's best 10 players on the night.
Crazy talk.
The guy can not kick.
I am a fan of his but his kicking cost us two goals. That's not acceptable
Do you realise that 60 to 70% of goals come from opposition turnovers. And that only about 40% of turnovers result in scores. Going by this logic teams would have about 10 per side if you dropped all the turnover merchants.
Malceski, Hanneberry, and O'Keefe all in top 10 clangers last year. All from Sydney.
Gary Ablett Jnr was also in 4th position, Nat Fyfe #1, and Dane Swan number 6.
Our Top 100 Clanger players
Melksham =29
Goddard =57
Stanton =72
Ryder =77
Heppell =94
Exactly
And most of us would agree that Goddard and Ryder are very good kicks.
Why did everyone hate Hardingham's game so much? Yes he made some clangers by foot but he kicked 2 goals at crucial stages of the game and curbed Thomas when sent back late.
I'd play Dempsey or Winders as the sub for Z.Merrret as the out if either are fit.
because his good is pretty good, but his bad is very bad. He ends up negating any good he does by the bad he does.
That being said at the end of the day he prolly ended up in front on friday night, but in a game where turnovers are so crucial you can't rely on someone who is so hit and miss.
you could argue his mistakes in the first were helpful to the momentum shift late in the first qtr. yes redeemed himself with a couple of goals and his shutting down of thomas later in the game.
I just don't think long term you can carry a guy who's disposal leads to so many turnover goals as hardy does.
I've noticed most of the shocking turnovers come when he tries to come inboard or be too cute. Should be told to go long down the line to a contest when he strays outside our forward 50.
Hardingham has to only learn two words; mark and handball. Anyone player that doesn't run past for the hand ball is just as responsible for hardingham kicking. Also the solution for him to kick long goes against our playing style at the moment