Was Aaron going to follow Fraser, do a Mal Michael...

[BAM! (shhhh)]

Shame, this thread was going well.

Initially I was thinking much like Rodger that if Hammill hasn't been able to ahve that effect till now, no reason to think he will now. However, Teflon's point about Hammill needing to primarily focus on Hammill for the last 3 years is no doubt apt.

We'd certainly be a logical place for Hammill to look at making a transition to coaching - if he's interested, and if he's got the makeup for it. I don't know if Hammill is a "thinker" or not, and whether his kind of play was a philosophy of the kind he could therefore teach. It certainly wouldn't hurt to have more Hammill in our game, but would Hammill the coach put it there?

If there really is bitterness though, it's quite possible he'll need some time away from the game, and there are other roads to coaching.

We'd be remiss not to make some sort of offer though.

[saint66au]

Hamill is universally respected by the players - first critical part in any role that could assist and influence player development and performance.

Sure. Totally agree.

Hamill's onfield aggression and sheer energy (regarded by many at his peak as the best defensive fwd going round) would be enormous around the club in an official capacity

I still don't see how what he did on-field would be enormous in an off-field official capacity?

And secondly, with Hamill having been an official leader at the club, and also an unofficial leader over the past 5 years - why are we still severely lacking in toughness of both the physical and mental nature?

When Hamill played, his influence was obvious. His leadership was absolutely exceptional. However, I'm not convinced he's added much when he hasn't been able to lead by example.

There's no evidence to suggest he has to date. So why would that change?

as his attitude on the training track was said by many players to be the way he played the game. If that could be of no benefit in helping players - ESPECIALLY YOUNGER ONES - learn whats required at AFL levels then I'll go hee. IMO Hamill was often the best exponent of what a player had to do when they did not have the footy.....how many contests/spillages did he provide for the likes of Milne and co....and thatd be no use at our club in any official capacity. ....hhmm....

Are we talking about Hamill making a comeback on-field? If so, then sure I agree.

If not, see my response above. He's been at the club for 5 years. We're still unfit. We still lack steel and resolve. We lack physical toughness. There's no evidence to suggest he has what it takes to coach footballers.

As he did when he played AND trained what Hamill bought to our club was as much about attitude and professionalism.....in many ways the "mongrel" he could empart on younger players is as much about what goes on between the ears as it would be physical......and how many times do we know the game is won/lost in that space or wish that certain players had that little extra determination that Hamill had for a contest?

Again, based on the fact that Hamill has been at the club in an official leadership capacity for 5 years, and we haven't improved in the areas you mentioned above - why are we assuming he'll suddenly be able to turn the list around now?

It would be great to have him remain at the club. However leading by example is a far different kettle of fish to leading and influencing guys by word of mouth.

Hamill has clearly shown he can lead by example. But I can't see anything to indicate he is capable of the latter.

I really wish if you were going to be silly youd desist from replying to my posts with inane tripe.

According to your logic Hamill can ONLY lead if hes in an onfield role....so cause he cant play anymore....he cant lead???? - (nor anything to impart to younger AFL players)

Bout sums you up really......fairly shallow...and you cast yourself out there as "left of centre" and a "deep thinker".....De Bono must be sh!tting himself......

By the way genius....theres "no evidence" that ANY AFL footballer will be able to coach footballers once out of the game......many great players proved that....but again...with your logic we may as well wait round for the "evidence" before giving someone like a Hamill an opportunity in a sanctioned developmental coaching role.....Cripps probably glad you dont make the calls down at the club when he finished........youd spend your days hunting "evidence"....

argue the points....don't get personal.

Moderate all posts with some consistency.....stop stalking mine only.

for the millionth time you arent being singled out..go read the Indian Cricket threads..there are people being kicked in the bum left right and centre over there

But...if you stopped being so damn patronising and smug in your posts then you'd need no moderating at all

[rodgerfox]

Shame, this thread was going well.

Initially I was thinking much like Rodger that if Hammill hasn't been able to ahve that effect till now, no reason to think he will now. However, Teflon's point about Hammill needing to primarily focus on Hammill for the last 3 years is no doubt apt.

It is a valid point, and may have merit.

We'd certainly be a logical place for Hammill to look at making a transition to coaching - if he's interested, and if he's got the makeup for it. I don't know if Hammill is a "thinker" or not, and whether his kind of play was a philosophy of the kind he could therefore teach. It certainly wouldn't hurt to have more Hammill in our game, but would Hammill the coach put it there?

If there really is bitterness though, it's quite possible he'll need some time away from the game, and there are other roads to coaching.

We'd be remiss not to make some sort of offer though.

My question initially was solely based on the assumption of many that Hamill as a coach, would add 'mongrel' to the squad because he played that way.

I was merely pointing out there has been nothing to suggest he has the ability to instill this 'mongrel' into our squad - apart from leading by example on the field.

We are still fragile mentally, and physically too. We still get bashed by Port each time we play them. We still miss important goals when the heat is on.

[Teflon]

Hamill is universally respected by the players - first critical part in any role that could assist and influence player development and performance.

Sure. Totally agree.

Hamill's onfield aggression and sheer energy (regarded by many at his peak as the best defensive fwd going round) would be enormous around the club in an official capacity

I still don't see how what he did on-field would be enormous in an off-field official capacity?

And secondly, with Hamill having been an official leader at the club, and also an unofficial leader over the past 5 years - why are we still severely lacking in toughness of both the physical and mental nature?

When Hamill played, his influence was obvious. His leadership was absolutely exceptional. However, I'm not convinced he's added much when he hasn't been able to lead by example.

There's no evidence to suggest he has to date. So why would that change?

as his attitude on the training track was said by many players to be the way he played the game. If that could be of no benefit in helping players - ESPECIALLY YOUNGER ONES - learn whats required at AFL levels then I'll go hee. IMO Hamill was often the best exponent of what a player had to do when they did not have the footy.....how many contests/spillages did he provide for the likes of Milne and co....and thatd be no use at our club in any official capacity. ....hhmm....

Are we talking about Hamill making a comeback on-field? If so, then sure I agree.

If not, see my response above. He's been at the club for 5 years. We're still unfit. We still lack steel and resolve. We lack physical toughness. There's no evidence to suggest he has what it takes to coach footballers.

As he did when he played AND trained what Hamill bought to our club was as much about attitude and professionalism.....in many ways the "mongrel" he could empart on younger players is as much about what goes on between the ears as it would be physical......and how many times do we know the game is won/lost in that space or wish that certain players had that little extra determination that Hamill had for a contest?

Again, based on the fact that Hamill has been at the club in an official leadership capacity for 5 years, and we haven't improved in the areas you mentioned above - why are we assuming he'll suddenly be able to turn the list around now?

It would be great to have him remain at the club. However leading by example is a far different kettle of fish to leading and influencing guys by word of mouth.

Hamill has clearly shown he can lead by example. But I can't see anything to indicate he is capable of the latter.

I really wish if you were going to be silly youd desist from replying to my posts with inane tripe.

According to your logic Hamill can ONLY lead if hes in an onfield role....so cause he cant play anymore....he cant lead???? - (nor anything to impart to younger AFL players)

Bout sums you up really......fairly shallow...and you cast yourself out there as "left of centre" and a "deep thinker".....De Bono must be sh!tting himself......

By the way genius....theres "no evidence" that ANY AFL footballer will be able to coach footballers once out of the game......many great players proved that....but again...with your logic we may as well wait round for the "evidence" before giving someone like a Hamill an opportunity in a sanctioned developmental coaching role.....Cripps probably glad you dont make the calls down at the club when he finished........youd spend your days hunting "evidence"....

argue the points....don't get personal.

Moderate all posts with some consistency.....stop stalking mine only.

for the millionth time you arent being singled out..go read the Indian Cricket threads..there are people being kicked in the bum left right and centre over there

But...if you stopped being so damn patronising and smug in your posts then you'd need no moderating at all

Patronising and smug?

Let me guess thats not being personal ofcourse...merely factual.....its only personal when I say it yeah? you do have to laugh...

[Teflon]

Shame, this thread was going well.

Initially I was thinking much like Rodger that if Hammill hasn't been able to ahve that effect till now, no reason to think he will now. However, Teflon's point about Hammill needing to primarily focus on Hammill for the last 3 years is no doubt apt.

We'd certainly be a logical place for Hammill to look at making a transition to coaching - if he's interested, and if he's got the makeup for it. I don't know if Hammill is a "thinker" or not, and whether his kind of play was a philosophy of the kind he could therefore teach. It certainly wouldn't hurt to have more Hammill in our game, but would Hammill the coach put it there?

If there really is bitterness though, it's quite possible he'll need some time away from the game, and there are other roads to coaching.

We'd be remiss not to make some sort of offer though.

The threads still going well BAM - chin up...just the usual...

As I said earlier what we are talking about here is Hamills capability to perform in a coaching role (I think if he wanted to hed be very good) to suggest that theres "no evidence" that he has this capacity (based on him as an injured player) when hes never had the opportunity to concentrate solely on coaching (nor develop himself the necessary coaching skill sets) is naive.

I do know Hamill can lead - Ive seen it - so that would be very important IMO from a coaching perspective because he already posesses the players respect (IMO leadership cant necessarily be taught) however, your point re: his desire to do it without bitterness is very true. For me it'd be worth asking the question as hes a unique (was) player in that, like Glen Archer, he posesses a natural instinct for the contest that Id hope would become infectious to those younger players coming through.......Id sick him on to Raph Clarke also....

[plugger66]

Shame, this thread was going well.

Initially I was thinking much like Rodger that if Hammill hasn't been able to ahve that effect till now, no reason to think he will now. However, Teflon's point about Hammill needing to primarily focus on Hammill for the last 3 years is no doubt apt.

We'd certainly be a logical place for Hammill to look at making a transition to coaching - if he's interested, and if he's got the makeup for it. I don't know if Hammill is a "thinker" or not, and whether his kind of play was a philosophy of the kind he could therefore teach. It certainly wouldn't hurt to have more Hammill in our game, but would Hammill the coach put it there?

If there really is bitterness though, it's quite possible he'll need some time away from the game, and there are other roads to coaching.

We'd be remiss not to make some sort of offer though.

The threads still going well BAM - chin up...just the usual...

As I said earlier what we are talking about here is Hamills capability to perform in a coaching role (I think if he wanted to hed be very good) to suggest that theres "no evidence" that he has this capacity (based on him as an injured player) when hes never had the opportunity to concentrate solely on coaching (nor develop himself the necessary coaching skill sets) is naive.

I do know Hamill can lead - Ive seen it - so that would be very important IMO from a coaching perspective because he already posesses the players respect (IMO leadership cant necessarily be taught) however, your point re: his desire to do it without bitterness is very true. For me it'd be worth asking the question as hes a unique (was) player in that, like Glen Archer, he posesses a natural instinct for the contest that Id hope would become infectious to those younger players coming through.......Id sick him on to Raph Clarke also....

Why do people think players who leave the club have any interest in coahing our club. How mant do? Not many at all and a player who was asked to retire why would he. Hammill may want to coach the Saints ih there is no more star wars movies but I doubt Hamill would.

[Teflon]

Shame, this thread was going well.

Initially I was thinking much like Rodger that if Hammill hasn't been able to ahve that effect till now, no reason to think he will now. However, Teflon's point about Hammill needing to primarily focus on Hammill for the last 3 years is no doubt apt.

We'd certainly be a logical place for Hammill to look at making a transition to coaching - if he's interested, and if he's got the makeup for it. I don't know if Hammill is a "thinker" or not, and whether his kind of play was a philosophy of the kind he could therefore teach. It certainly wouldn't hurt to have more Hammill in our game, but would Hammill the coach put it there?

If there really is bitterness though, it's quite possible he'll need some time away from the game, and there are other roads to coaching.

We'd be remiss not to make some sort of offer though.

The threads still going well BAM - chin up...just the usual...

As I said earlier what we are talking about here is Hamills capability to perform in a coaching role (I think if he wanted to hed be very good) to suggest that theres "no evidence" that he has this capacity (based on him as an injured player) when hes never had the opportunity to concentrate solely on coaching (nor develop himself the necessary coaching skill sets) is naive.

I do know Hamill can lead - Ive seen it - so that would be very important IMO from a coaching perspective because he already posesses the players respect (IMO leadership cant necessarily be taught) however, your point re: his desire to do it without bitterness is very true. For me it'd be worth asking the question as hes a unique (was) player in that, like Glen Archer, he posesses a natural instinct for the contest that Id hope would become infectious to those younger players coming through.......Id sick him on to Raph Clarke also....

Why do people think players who leave the club have any interest in coahing our club. How mant do? Not many at all and a player who was asked to retire why would he. Hammill may want to coach the Saints ih there is no more star wars movies but I doubt Hamill would.

Threads more about whether he has the capability to do a coaching job - not about his desire. Ofcourse not all who play wanna coach but IMO he'd be one Id at least ask the question of to guage his desire (and if he said no - so be it...nothing ventured and all that)

Didnt Mark Hamill play Luke Skywalker?

[HarveysDeciple]

Hamill is universally respected by the players - first critical part in any role that could assist and influence player development and performance.

Sure. Totally agree.

Hamill's onfield aggression and sheer energy (regarded by many at his peak as the best defensive fwd going round) would be enormous around the club in an official capacity

I still don't see how what he did on-field would be enormous in an off-field official capacity?

And secondly, with Hamill having been an official leader at the club, and also an unofficial leader over the past 5 years - why are we still severely lacking in toughness of both the physical and mental nature?

When Hamill played, his influence was obvious. His leadership was absolutely exceptional. However, I'm not convinced he's added much when he hasn't been able to lead by example.

There's no evidence to suggest he has to date. So why would that change?

as his attitude on the training track was said by many players to be the way he played the game. If that could be of no benefit in helping players - ESPECIALLY YOUNGER ONES - learn whats required at AFL levels then I'll go hee. IMO Hamill was often the best exponent of what a player had to do when they did not have the footy.....how many contests/spillages did he provide for the likes of Milne and co....and thatd be no use at our club in any official capacity. ....hhmm....

Are we talking about Hamill making a comeback on-field? If so, then sure I agree.

If not, see my response above. He's been at the club for 5 years. We're still unfit. We still lack steel and resolve. We lack physical toughness. There's no evidence to suggest he has what it takes to coach footballers.

As he did when he played AND trained what Hamill bought to our club was as much about attitude and professionalism.....in many ways the "mongrel" he could empart on younger players is as much about what goes on between the ears as it would be physical......and how many times do we know the game is won/lost in that space or wish that certain players had that little extra determination that Hamill had for a contest?

Again, based on the fact that Hamill has been at the club in an official leadership capacity for 5 years, and we haven't improved in the areas you mentioned above - why are we assuming he'll suddenly be able to turn the list around now?

It would be great to have him remain at the club. However leading by example is a far different kettle of fish to leading and influencing guys by word of mouth.

Hamill has clearly shown he can lead by example. But I can't see anything to indicate he is capable of the latter.

I really wish if you were going to be silly youd desist from replying to my posts with inane tripe.

According to your logic Hamill can ONLY lead if hes in an onfield role....so cause he cant play anymore....he cant lead???? - (nor anything to impart to younger AFL players)

Bout sums you up really......fairly shallow...and you cast yourself out there as "left of centre" and a "deep thinker".....De Bono must be sh!tting himself......

By the way genius....theres "no evidence" that ANY AFL footballer will be able to coach footballers once out of the game......many great players proved that....but again...with your logic we may as well wait round for the "evidence" before giving someone like a Hamill an opportunity in a sanctioned developmental coaching role.....Cripps probably glad you dont make the calls down at the club when he finished........youd spend your days hunting "evidence"....

argue the points....don't get personal.

Moderate all posts with some consistency.....stop stalking mine only.

for the millionth time you arent being singled out..go read the Indian Cricket threads..there are people being kicked in the bum left right and centre over there

But...if you stopped being so damn patronising and smug in your posts then you'd need no moderating at all

Patronising and smug?

Let me guess thats not being personal ofcourse...merely factual.....its only personal when I say it yeah? you do have to laugh...

what?

[Teflon]

Hamill is universally respected by the players - first critical part in any role that could assist and influence player development and performance.

Sure. Totally agree.

Hamill's onfield aggression and sheer energy (regarded by many at his peak as the best defensive fwd going round) would be enormous around the club in an official capacity

I still don't see how what he did on-field would be enormous in an off-field official capacity?

And secondly, with Hamill having been an official leader at the club, and also an unofficial leader over the past 5 years - why are we still severely lacking in toughness of both the physical and mental nature?

When Hamill played, his influence was obvious. His leadership was absolutely exceptional. However, I'm not convinced he's added much when he hasn't been able to lead by example.

There's no evidence to suggest he has to date. So why would that change?

as his attitude on the training track was said by many players to be the way he played the game. If that could be of no benefit in helping players - ESPECIALLY YOUNGER ONES - learn whats required at AFL levels then I'll go hee. IMO Hamill was often the best exponent of what a player had to do when they did not have the footy.....how many contests/spillages did he provide for the likes of Milne and co....and thatd be no use at our club in any official capacity. ....hhmm....

Are we talking about Hamill making a comeback on-field? If so, then sure I agree.

If not, see my response above. He's been at the club for 5 years. We're still unfit. We still lack steel and resolve. We lack physical toughness. There's no evidence to suggest he has what it takes to coach footballers.

As he did when he played AND trained what Hamill bought to our club was as much about attitude and professionalism.....in many ways the "mongrel" he could empart on younger players is as much about what goes on between the ears as it would be physical......and how many times do we know the game is won/lost in that space or wish that certain players had that little extra determination that Hamill had for a contest?

Again, based on the fact that Hamill has been at the club in an official leadership capacity for 5 years, and we haven't improved in the areas you mentioned above - why are we assuming he'll suddenly be able to turn the list around now?

It would be great to have him remain at the club. However leading by example is a far different kettle of fish to leading and influencing guys by word of mouth.

Hamill has clearly shown he can lead by example. But I can't see anything to indicate he is capable of the latter.

I really wish if you were going to be silly youd desist from replying to my posts with inane tripe.

According to your logic Hamill can ONLY lead if hes in an onfield role....so cause he cant play anymore....he cant lead???? - (nor anything to impart to younger AFL players)

Bout sums you up really......fairly shallow...and you cast yourself out there as "left of centre" and a "deep thinker".....De Bono must be sh!tting himself......

By the way genius....theres "no evidence" that ANY AFL footballer will be able to coach footballers once out of the game......many great players proved that....but again...with your logic we may as well wait round for the "evidence" before giving someone like a Hamill an opportunity in a sanctioned developmental coaching role.....Cripps probably glad you dont make the calls down at the club when he finished........youd spend your days hunting "evidence"....

argue the points....don't get personal.

Moderate all posts with some consistency.....stop stalking mine only.

for the millionth time you arent being singled out..go read the Indian Cricket threads..there are people being kicked in the bum left right and centre over there

But...if you stopped being so damn patronising and smug in your posts then you'd need no moderating at all

Patronising and smug?

Let me guess thats not being personal ofcourse...merely factual.....its only personal when I say it yeah? you do have to laugh...

what?

How bout just contribute with some football discussion or say nothing at all if you get the urge?

cheers.