YOUR SAY: Debunking Damo

We had a LOT of feedback on our article yesterday regarding our good friend at AFL Media and some of his out there takes. Here we highlight some of your thoughts...

Subscribe to Hawks Insiders for match recaps, exclusive pods, player ratings, and all the news through Hawthorn-tinted glasses.

Yesterday we published a much needed and long over view article highlighting and rebutting some of the clickbait journalism provided by AFL jouranist Damien Barrett in recent times.

Fair to say it was widely well received - with a number of you wanting to have your say on the topic.

So we thought it would we worthwhile letting you read through some of your responses in the one place - plenty to read and consider - enjoy!

TWITTER COMMENTS

FACEBOOK COMMENTS

SUBSTACK COMMENTS

Umberto Nadalin

White noise, click bait from Barrett. Having followed the Hawks since ‘71 it’s been a luxury of riches to be getting a flag every 4.5 years and statistically being the best performed team in the post war era i.e. the era of modern football).

I’m still a little bit aggrieved at the transition from Clarko to Mitchell - it was inept and I don’t think unreasonable to have Mitchell wait a year while Clarko embraced the rebuild, however no going back now (would love to see SM stop an opposition avalanche from the box - but early days and he’s still got training wheels).

A four quarter performance of our best 2023 football and we’re beating any team. And I still think we’re closer to a Premiership from last than Saints for what it’s worth.

Mick Cowan

When you (re)define a commonly accepted term to suit your argument/perspective, then your argument loses all credibility, this making it a purely personal opinion.

To run a “substantive” argument, you need to apply the commonly accepted definition to support the quality of your argument.

The Clarkson transition was always going to “end in tears” for all parties once it was thought the mentor handover arrangement would work.

This is on the Club, although Clarko does make the claim of wanting Mitchell to be his successor and wanted him confirmed with the Pies job being open.

I believe the fundamental issue is that (most) Clubs fall in love with their premiership players & coaches, particularly when they win multiple flags. Essendon/Sheedy; Man U/Ferguson; Arsenal/Wenger being some examples of this malaise which has had longstanding impacts thereafter for these clubs.

(Remember Matthews was appointed “coach for life” at Collingwood - Lethal was the only one who was shaking his head as soon as it was said.)

Clarko was strong enough to realise this with the playing group - Lewis, Mitchell (& Hodge?) being examples. The Board should’ve adopted a similar stance with Clarko & we should’ve paid him out as thanks for his efforts in turning the Club around on the field.

If you want a true sliding door moment, if Clarko had done a clean handover, would he be coaching Collingwood today?

(Note: Being old enough to have experienced the Kennedy/Parkin transition, it has been done however these times are very different to then. Similarly, at that time, a captain/coach arrangement was thought possible and was a very very short lived experience.)

Sean Pinan

I used to think Barrett was just targeting the Hawks as part of a massive chip on shoulder agenda and perhaps that is partially true. However, when you read the weekly AFL 'If...then...' commentary on most clubs, it really looks like he runs an ongoing search for click bait material and relevancy by putting some pretty outlandish views out there.

However, thanks HI team for publishing this. Very closely echoes the sentiments of many angry Hawks fans I know and he really should be held to account for some of the inflammation he causes.

Stuart McKenzie

To Hawks Insiders, a massive thanks for addressing the relentless and baseless anti-Hawthorn obsession from Damien Barrett. The latest suggestion that draft picks should be removed as punishment for not handling the independent investigation into racism allegations as well as it may have been managed, is just ridiculous.

As for speaking for Hawthorn supporters, other than Nat Edwards with whom he works, who has he spoken to?

Personally, I'm not fussed about losing to get the number one pick - winning is important validation of our process and critical to building belief, a winning culture and standards.

The other question I'd ask and great credit to the HI respondents in the article for not getting personal, but does anyone really care what Damien Barrett thinks? In the pantheon of football media, his views are by and large irrelevant. Like Umberto, I firmly believe that we're on the right path, acknowledging that there's no guarantee of success, with the makings of a very good team coming together.

Some astute drafting, trading and free agent acquisitions over the next 2-3 years will only add to what is a very nice crop of young talent. Thanks again.

Stephen

Personally, I'm not sure Barrett's rubbish is worth responding to. Like Cornes, he's a low level "journalist" seeking relevance by annoying people and looking for clicks or viewers.

These sorts of people are the pits. My only one query is why he is obsessed with Hawthorn. What personal offence has he suffered in the past to explain his obsession?

Paul OKeefe

Thanks for this much needed rebuttal guys.

The call for draft penalties is the last straw, the points made here regarding that specifically are perfectly put (as well as all the other responses).

Although Barrett is pure clickbait accumulator (he is in a competition with Cornes for most ludicrous beat up), the issue is that unfortunately these commentators do have some influence in setting agendas, as such their spurious comments need challenging. Another example, to listen to Geelong fanboy Whateley claim that we are tanking the same as Carlton and Melbourne did years ago and suggesting we should be punished by broadcasters/ schedulers is not only disrespectful but it is not based on any factual evidence.

They are jealous of our success and are desperately disappointed to see the Hawthorn board and majority of membership base onboard in our direction and they know we will be successful again very soon.

Heather Preston

It is the suggestion that we should be sanctioned with the removal of draft selections that is the most outrageous. I’m not sure when the AFL decided it was OK for people to push their own warped and heavily biased opinions and masquerade them as ‘journalism’. Barrett did a Q&A with Gill McLachlan at the start of the season and asked him straight out if draft sanctions would apply.

Gill’s answer was: "No. I think we all have moments where things can be done better and we take learnings from it. It is important that we get to natural justice and a culturally safe and independent process getting to the bottom of the allegations. And then there is: how do we do reviews and reports that actually make sure there are not unintended problems."

A very considered and appropriate response from Gill that Barrett has henceforth ignored in order to push his own barrow.

It’s unfortunate that Barrett does not have the objectiveness or ethics to be a decent journalist. Even more unfortunate that the AFL still pays him to be this bad!

---

Follow Hawks Insiders on Twitter and Facebook.