Do we have enough mongrel to win a flag?

[LostDoggy]

We are a very skillful side with some terrific players. We are tough and fair in a contest but I wonder if we have that X factor or mongrel required to really become a dominant team.

To my way of thinking we miss out out by not having a Jose Romero or Libba running around in our midfield and I really question how much better our team would be if a Matthew Boyd for example had a fair bit more mongrel in his game.

While a guy like Kirk from the Swans isn't as good as a Kerr, Cousins or Judd from the Eagles I'd argue that he is still nearly as vital player for the Swans as those from that impressive Eagles trio. On pure football ability he can't match it with them but his endeavour cannot be questioned.

Do we miss not having a player or two with a bit more grunt and mongrel about their game running around in our midfield?

Harris does a very good job of making a physical contest in defence but I'd like to see someone else roughing up a player or two in the midfield.

Thoughts?

[The Bulldogs Bite]

It's a good question, and only time can answer it, but I think with a fully fit side we're capable of having enough mongrel to at least be competitive against Sydney & West Coast etc.

Hahn, Cross & West are first liners when you're talking about the contested Football. Wst is the king, Cross is always improving and a Scotty West second coming whilst Hahn is undeniably vital to our structure with his ability to bullock his way through packs, gaining crucial meterage. He's very, very strong Hahn so often he's taking on two or three guys and it really breaks things open for the runners. He was brillant prior to his injury, was in career best form.

Boyd, Gia, Robbins & Harris are in the next category. Boyd with his bigger body should probably throw his weight around a little more, but I'm sure that'll improve with another year under the belt. Gia is a hard nut, he doesn't always consistently do it but when he's fired up he puts some great tackles on and niggles the opposition. He loves the rough stuff when his adrenaline's up, and he's a quality player who like Hahn is so crucial to our structure with the ability of being a very dangerous HFF or a skillful midfielder. Robbins applies great pressure in the forward line, so much so that when his form has been down it's kept him in the side. Harris is inconsistent, but he too has a bit of mongrel in him at times.

Big Will is another guy who has mongrel, arguably too much sometimes :p

Higgins & Griffen are good tacklers due to their upper body, so IMO - with a full side - we're not too bad off. Of course this changes reguarly as we never seem to have a full side, but the "potential" is there it's just a matter of getting it to gel and get on the park.

[Dry Rot]

By mongrel, I take the question to mean something like having the Scott brothers of the Lions. Or Pickett etc

If I'm right, aside from Minson and Harris we have zip. Don't misunderstand me, I don't mean just guts and hardness.

I mean pure nastiness, and I don't think we have that across the park.

Whether or not that means we can't win a flag, I don't know. But having players like the Scott brothers can't hurt IMO.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

By mongrel, I take the question to mean something like having the Scott brothers of the Lions. Or Pickett etc

If I'm right, aside from Minson and Harris we have zip. Don't misunderstand me, I don't mean just guts and hardness.

I mean pure nastiness, and I don't think we have that across the park.

Whether or not that means we can't win a flag, I don't know. But having players like the Scott brothers can't hurt IMO.

Intimidation is great, but not exactly needed to win a Premiership IMO.

Scott Brothers were good in their day, though I think they would be found out in todays game. They lack pace big time, so IMO the intimidation factor is irrelevant.

The intimidation of a J. Brown for example is a whole different story.

I think having hard at it players is what you need, and we have a few in West, Cross, Hahn, Robbins, Gia, Harris & Minson.

Sydney are a good example. They don't have any nasty players, but Kirk, Bolton, Buchannon etc. are great hard nuts. At the end of the day, thy win you Premierships - not intimidation.

[Mofra]

Hargrave hasn't been mentioned yet, he certainly has a bit of mongrel. Dracy can be intimidating too, however he looks a little skinny to me so might take some time to get back into it.

Cam Wight (I managed to work him into a thread again!) stood up to a few of the bigger backmen last year, he could be one that surprises in years to come, and if Skipper is bigger he could add a bit of grunt as well.

I don;t think we compare too badly with WCE in the mongrel stakes, however it is hard to rough the other team up if they can't bl00dy catch you in the first place :D

[GVGjr]

I agree that Hargrave displays a touch of aggression but I'm not sure if he fits the mongrel tag. He will meet fire with fire but I'm not sure he will necessarily start the rough stuff.

[Dry Rot]

A couple of Archer like players wouldn't hurt. How many of our team worry the opposition like this? ie Probably certain thoughts go through a player's mind when he hears Archer's footsteps behind him.

[bresker]

We are a "nice guy" team, but we can indimate teams through skill & speed rather than bashing them up. There's more than one way to skin a cat. Richmond, Brisbane and Collingwood in the irst final were left shellshocked, amongst others. They won't want to face up to us again.

We don't back down in a scrap , whenever a mellee occurs our boys back each other up. And they go in hard, as evidenced by the two Geelong games.

Aker might get on a few opposition nerves this year, I expect our boys to fly the flag for him.

[southerncross]

Not sure that we need to have a bit of mongrel about our play but as others have pointed out we rarely shirk a contest.

A more solid defensive work ethic plus a "refuse to lose" attitude will be more than enough.

[alwaysadog]

I define this as asking can we respond when physical presure is applied to us and can we physically intimidate teams. As I see it there are three things at least wrapped up in this.

1. DR's nastiness; a potent force if well applied and focussed. Problem is that degree of intensity can get out of hand and the AFL is running the game for the Kindergarten audience so no chance of a long career on nastiness. Although the threat of it would upset a few and judicially applied and infrequently used it helps to strengthen an image. While we have a few players with a bit of it, I have seen little evidence of a capacity to apply it well and it usually gets them sucked in and then it?s off to the tribunal for no gain but much pain.

2. Mental toughness; the no surrender attitude, you may win the battle but I'll win the war. I'll make a contest of every situation; there is no such thing as an easy ball when you play me. I think we were good at this at times last season but at others we showed a real weakness here. The absence of it is what has caused us to lose close important games, like the last game against Melbourne late in 2005 which denied us a place in the 8. Some games last season we just couldn't keep our intensity up and in others we let other sides dominate us mentally.

The game against North the week after beating the Weagles (Weavils??) in Perth was an example of where we were more emotionally than physically exhausted. The semi against the Weagles was lost as much in our heads as anywhere else. Still this is Rocket's main area of success and he won't let this be a problem for too long he knows how important and central it was in the Hawthorn glory days. That said it takes time to develop.

3. Brute force; unfortunately we haven?t got it and while we have made some progress we are still way short on it compared to last year?s grand finalists. If the game is about speed then its also about applied force. Rocket reports that the playing group is showing across the board gains in strength. But is this enough?

A high percentage of the game is palyed in pack situations and our game plan depends on us winning the contested ball and then doing lightening quick things with it. An area we will no doubt keep working on but will still have difficulty competing when the real pressure is turned on..

In summary we are getting better in this department but IMHO still have a way to go.

[firstdogonthemoon]

It is good to have an "enforcer". I think big will is the candidate - he just needs to back it up with consistent performance, then he will get credibility as well.

You need to have someone on your team who others fear.

People fear Pickett. Because he is unpredictably dangerous.

People fear J Brown, because he is a thug. I am sure other people could think of others. Hard bastards who laugh at you after they grind you into the turf.

I think it is important to have someone like that, but I dont know if it is critical. The Eagles dont have one (do they?).

Big Bad is a pussycat these days - although the swans won a flag so.....

[Dry Rot]

Re what "hardness" we have, this year will be a good test if reports are right about bigger bodies.

Hopefully we will start to knock other teams off the ball, and hit 'em hard in tackles.

[BulldogBelle]

Hopefully we will start to knock other teams off the ball, and hit 'em hard in tackles.

Yes, that will be good to see especially when we come up against teams like St Kilda their body strength against us was a big thing when we played them.

[bornadog]

Not sure that we need to have a bit of mongrel about our play but as others have pointed out we rarely shirk a contest.

A more solid defensive work ethic plus a "refuse to lose" attitude will be more than enough.

Totally agree with your thoughts. When the three amigos were going around, I think it was right for the time for those guys to show a bit of agro, as we didn't have the skills as we do today. The game is alot faster now and the mongrel isnot as relevant as it was in the past.

[Dry Rot]

Totally agree with your thoughts. When the three amigos were going around, I think it was right for the time for those guys to show a bit of agro, as we didn't have the skills as we do today. The game is alot faster now and the mongrel isnot as relevant as it was in the past.

Fair point - do we need to define here modern day "mongrel" and "hardness"?