Bolton beats the old boss as Carlton give Hawks the Blues

Didn't say you weren't within bounds but " I’m pretty sure they’ve got more of a clue than you." is definitely "slander" - I don't have to be offended to observe you are losing the debate. As for not caring - you have been arguing it for 12 hours, odd way not to care. And you may be unafraid but remember "The line between bravery and stu p!di ty is so thin that you don't know you've crossed it until you're dead." And as for calling me on my BS - I have offered an opinion, I have explained my reasons for that opinion, I have provided some form of "evidence" to support why I hold my opinion - all you have done is say "Mitchell is elite because I think so", hardlydebunking my theory. You couldn't even answer the simple question "how often does Mitchell get a hard tag?"

personally I couldn't care less if you rate Mitchell as elite or not but I'm not afraid to call you on your assessment which I still think is BS. and mate, don't bother to lecture me on the etiquette of civil debating - I'm well within bounds.

Birdman - I still don't understand why you are so obsessed to get Mitchell rated as "elite" by me - there is nothing wrong with good. By definition only a very few players can be elite -I love Patrick Cripps but I don't rate him as elite (just yet - but he did improve the area's he needs to work on to get there this year - contested marking, getting forward and hitting the scoreboard and improving his kick to handball ratio) - Mitchell is a good player but has limitations. As for Mitchell and the blues - I am glad we didn't take him (and said so at the time) SPS is going to be very good for us and will take less possessions to have an impact - he may even be elite in time. ;) And remember "“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”

umpires won't be the only people marking his card Macca and I'm pretty sure they've got more of a clue than you. One thing I am sure about is that had he chosen the Blues over the Hawks, you'd be singing a completely different tune....

Instead of trying to tell me what I am saying why don't you simply accept what I am actually saying. Lets take another example - his 50 possession game against the magpies - in that game 56% of his possessions were handballs and 56% of his possessions were uncontested - again that means a lot of uncontested handballs. His total metres gained for the game was 309m - even if we only counted his uncontested possessions he is gaining just 11m per possession - not even far enough for a legal mark to be taken even before you factor in him moving before he disposes of the ball, this significantly increases the chances of the ball coming straight back to Mitchell for no benefit to the hawks. As for the awards - of course he will "feature significantly" he is a good player (and the umpires are dazzled by players who get a lot of the ball right under their noses) which is what I have been saying all along. You should remember though - a lot of good players win awards and a lot of "elite" players don't.

you're in effect saying Mitchell should be a one man midfield (being miles and away our best mid all year) and still get the Hawks across the line and if he fails to do that proves he only a good mid. Maybe we can resume this exchange after Brownlow night, the AA announcement and after the Hawks B&F where a good player might just feature significantly.

I am not suggesting that at all, and seeing as I have stated explicitly what I am saying a number of times I find it od that you fail to grasp the point. I am saying yet again "” Mitchell does win a lot of in and under ball” ““He’s not a superstar but he is a very effective ball winner” ”I just don’t get as excited as Saturday nights commentators about the fact he picked up 44 possessions.” "he also has a lot of uncontested possessions where he chooses to handball which results in no real benefit for the Hawks and often him simply getting the ball back and adding another stat." I am also saying "all you have offered is “I think he is elite so you are wrong” I am also saying "You really should ask yourself why you find it so offensive that I think a Mitchell is a good player?" Going back to the stats I provided earlier 65.9% of Mitchell possessions on Saturday night were handballs & 54.54% of his possessions were uncontested - that points to a hole lot of uncontested handballs, the main impact of which is simply allowing Mitchell to get the ball back and add to his stats. I am also saying that unlike most "elite" players Mitchell simply pads his stats against weaker opposition rather than having a greater impact against them and leading his team to a significant victory.

Jockey Bolts has done a fair job with what he's got.We will see in the next 2years how good the team has progressed.The test starts next season onwards

you're in effect suggesting that because Mitchell may accumulate slightly more possessions in a loss (against weaker oppo) than when the Hawks win (against better oppo) that proves he's sub-elite (i.e good). Most elite mids would demonstrate the same slight drop off against better teams. IMHO It suggests at best that he's trying just as hard and is just as effective (i.e. elite) regardless of the quality of the opposition. not one of your finer efforts, Macca.

"on that logic, Mitchell can’t take any credit for those games the Hawks won against top 8 sides when he averaged mid to high 30’s?" Just think about that statement and what I am saying. In the games where Hawthorn won, against better opposition Mitchell had less possessions than he did when they lost against cellar dwellers like Carlton and the Suns - doesn't that prove my point about quantity not being the be all and end all? As I have previously said " Mitchell does win a lot of in and under ball" "“He’s not a superstar but he is a very effective ball winner” Exactly " " I just don’t get as excited as Saturday nights commentators about the fact he picked up 44 possessions."

on that logic, Mitchell can't take any credit for those games the Hawks won against top 8 sides when he averaged mid to high 30's?

Birdman - how often do "elite" players get 40 plus possessions and their sides lose? It has happened to Mitchell 3 times with a 4th on 39 possessions. If sides the quality of Carlton, the Suns and Collingwood can let Mitchell get 40 plus possessions and still win a lot of his possessions aren't doing any damage. And the fact no one bothers to tag him points to the coaches knowing this. As for the "desperate use of stats" - you are correct it isn't "proof" but so far I have articulated my reasons for thinking Mitchell is a good player a number of times in different formats and all you have offered is "I think he is elite so you are wrong" - maybe you should look to your argument before criticising others.

all that proves is that Mitchell has been crying out for a chop out from our other mids whose lack of impact on the inside and outside of the contest has been an ongoing theme all year. BTW trying to tie his possession count with our losses is a pathetic and desperate use of stats. I could just as easily use Cripps' stats to the same end. Mitchell efforts have absolutely in the elite class this season - without him we would have been grappling your boys all season for the spoon.

Birdman - These are Mitchell's 5 highest possession games this year Round 9 V Collingwood 50 possessions Hawthorn lost by 18 points Round 22 V Carlton 44 possessions Hawthorn lost by 7 points Round 17 V Geelong 43 possessions Hawthorn lost by 3 points Round 12 V Suns 39 possessions Hawthorn Lost by 16 points Round 16 V Giants 39 possessions draw.

Not at all, I just assumed that given you didn't refute my earlier points you had conceded them and there was nothing more to say. You also didn't answer my question. Mitchell is a good player but his stats get blown out with a lot of meaningless possessions, Cripps impacts the game considerably more with less possessions. You really should ask yourself why you find it so offensive that I think a Mitchell is a good player?

the fact you obviously prefer Cripps doesn't make your case out for putting Mitchell in the 'good and handy' class but I'm assumed you've realised how ridiculous that proposition really was in the first place.

Speaking of making out like bandits - the blues are loving having Williamson, MacReadie & Polson thanks. As for Mitchell, I'll take Cripps any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

maybe 'good' is code for 'elite' and 'a handy get' is code for 'making out like bandits'? enjoy breaking the hoodoo, Macca but maybe don't drink too much of that bathwater, eh?

So he wasn't a good player and a handy get for the club Birdman? On the night Mitchell racked up 44 possessions 29 of them handballs and 24 of them uncontested - he gained 458m and had 7 score involvements. 4 of his 7 clearances were from the centre bounce. Sam Docherty won the David Parkin medal - had 31 possessions, 26 of them kicks 24 for them uncontested, gained 555 metres and had 8 score involvements. Mitchell had a good game but for his extra 13 possessions had less impact than Docherty. Mitchell does win a lot of in and under ball but he also has a lot of uncontested possessions where he chooses to handball which results in no real benefit for the Hawks and often him simply getting the ball back and adding another stat. As I said I think Mitchell was a handy pick up for the Hawks, I just don't get as excited as Saturday nights commentators about the fact he picked up 44 possessions. Also how often does Mitchell get a hard tag?

Yes I was less disappointed by seeing the thinnest prospects of finals evaporating as I was by the insipid performance on the night particularly the constant bombing into the Carlton D50 and the over possessing of the footy by hand and foot.