Hack of the week

**Legs Akimbo** · 10th November 2005, 07:16 PM

Let?s start our latest installment of Hack of the week by reconfirming the definition of ?Hack??

n. A quick job that produces what is needed, but not well.

Well, there are actually quite a few definitions of ?hack? but this is the one I like the most. It is a definition leads me to select Ben Matthews as this week?s winner of Hack of the Week.

Drafted in the 1995 Draft as a zone selection, Ben Matthews has played 159 Games of AFL football. To put that games record into context?

? Only 4% of thirteen and half thousand odd players who have played AFL/VFL football since 1897 have played more than 159 games.
? Only 2% of the 1,333 players who have represented Sydney have played 159 games or more. On either side of Ben on the player list stand Bobb Pratt on 158 games in the red and white and Adam Goodes on 161.

And at 27 years of age, he probably has another 120 games in him, meaning he is going to end up in the top 1% of AFL players, for games played.

And yet Ben Matthews is a hack. Here?s why?

1. He won?t kick the ball to first year players. On several occasions last year I watched him neglect the obvious option of disposing to a young player in the clear (e.g. LRT) and instead kick it to the boundary. This is not very nice.
2. He has a very limited game plan consisting of three set plays
a. Kick it to the boundary
b. Kick it backwards to an uncontested teammate
c. Offload it to a team mate about to get crunched by a pack of 10 opposition players.
d. Kick it to the opposition. Anecdotally, I estimate that at least 40% of Ben?s disposals that don?t result in set-playes a to c above end up going straight to the opposition.

So he definitely fits the bill as a ?Hack? ? does the job needed but not well, and certainly not with ?lan.

Having said all that, Ben is a good stopper (e.g. his Grand Final game). A veritable human cork. If we looked at this from a Game Theory perspective, this would be called the ?Ben Matthews Dilemma?.

There are two players going for the ball for any given contest ? Ben Matthews and his opponent. If Ben?s opponent wins the ball, then that is worth -3 to Sydney. If Ben wins the Ball, that is worth -4 to Sydney. If neither win the ball, that is worth 0 to Sydney. There is a 20% chance Ben Matthews will win the ball, a 20% chance his opponent will win the ball and a 60% chance neither will win the ball. If Ben Matthews does not play, then there is a 40% chance his would be opponent will win the ball against his Sydney opponent on any given contest and this is worth -3 to Sydney. Should Ben Matthews be given a game?

I?ll let others sort out the answer to this one because having enunciated the problem, I am definitely not equipped to solve it.

I have another qualitative theory about how our Hack of the Week has managed to land himself in the top 2% of all time Sydney players for games played. My theory is that Paul Roos needs Ben Matthews and several others like him in the team to maintain our carefully cultivated image of a blue collar midfield.

? He has plan brown hair ? no tips or highlights
? He is average height ? 182cm and 84kg, sort of non-descript looking
? He has a very boring sounding name

? does the job needed but not well, and certainly not with ?lan= Hack

**Sean** · 10th November 2005, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by Legs Akimbo
? does the job needed but not well

Originally posted by Legs Akimbo
? Ben is a good stopper

Being a stopper is his job so does he do it well or not well?

**Legs Akimbo** · 10th November 2005, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by Sean
Being a stopper is his job so does he do it well or not well?

I think my point is Brett Kirk does the job well. Ben Matthews simply does the job.

**Sean** · 10th November 2005, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by Legs Akimbo
I think my point is Brett Kirk does the job well. Ben Matthews simply does the job.

Aaah but Kirk doesn't play as a tagger - thanks largely to Mathews. Freeing up Kirk, our best midfielder, helps the team - making Mathews even more valuable

**Xie Shan** · 10th November 2005, 07:51 PM

I'm not sure why Hack of the Week has attracted so much venom. Yes, it does have the potential to degenerate into excessive negativity and bagging players for the sake of it, which does bring down the vibe on RWO, but your arguments are fairly constructive, and more of a light-hearted piss-take.

In Ben's case, some of the criticisms you make about his game are valid (he's not the quickest decision-maker and not the most imaginative player).

The Game Theory analysis is harsh. I'm an optimist, but when I watch the games I'll always see us gaining possession as the best outcome. There's always the possibility that the next disposal will find a teammate, at least!!

But he did have a good game in the GF. So by that line of reasoning he should stay in the team as he was one of the reasons we won the premiership!

**Sean** · 10th November 2005, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by sydfan83
I'm not sure why Hack of the Week has attracted so much venom.

Probably because complaining about someone for the sake of it rather than because they deserve it is unAustralian

Anyway, as long as people who give it can also take it then I don't see a problem with it. For example, if I was to suggest that Legs could be awarded Bandwagoner of the Week because he can't spell the name of the person he is posting about and he took it good-naturedly then all's fair

**Legs Akimbo** · 10th November 2005, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by Sean
Probably because complaining about someone for the sake of it rather than because they deserve it is unAustralian

Anyway, as long as people who give it can also take it then I don't see a problem with it. For example, if I was to suggest that Legs could be awarded Bandwagoner of the Week because he can't spell the name of the person he is posting about and he took it good-naturedly then all's fair

I can take the spelling jibe.= (I'll fix it - edit @@@@, can't fix it). What do you mean by Bandwagoner?

**DST** · 10th November 2005, 08:15 PM

Ben Mathews is the type of player you don't notice how good he was until he retires.

We have had endless debates on this board as to his questionable disposal at times. But one thing you can't deny is that he knows how to read a game of football and use that to his advantage when tagging a player or playing as a sweeper in defence.

DST

**Sean** · 10th November 2005, 08:15 PM

Originally posted by Legs Akimbo
I can take the spelling jibe.= (I'll fix it - edit @@@@, can't fix it). What do you mean by Bandwagoner?

It was just a joke - implying that you are new to supporting the side because you can't spell the players names. A bit like Melbourne supporters shouting "go number 10!".

Obviously it's not true.

BTW, I wonder if Mathews foot injury affected his disposal this year because it definitely seemed worse than previous years. It is lucky that he is a good defensive player because it would have made things tough for the coaching staff - having to consider dropping a leadership group member.

**Plugger46** · 10th November 2005, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by Sean
BTW, I wonder if Mathews foot injury affected his disposal this year because it definitely seemed worse than previous years. It is lucky that he is a good defensive player because it would have made things tough for the coaching staff - having to consider dropping a leadership group member.

Cut it out, his disposal has always been poor.

**Sean** · 10th November 2005, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by Plugger46
Cut it out, his disposal has always been poor.

I know you aren't a fan. It definitely seemed to be worse this year though.

**Legs Akimbo** · 10th November 2005, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by Sean
It was just a joke - implying that you are new to supporting the side because you can't spell the players names. A bit like Melbourne supporters shouting "go number 10!".

Obviously it's not true.

BTW, I wonder if Mathews foot injury affected his disposal this year because it definitely seemed worse than previous years. It is lucky that he is a good defensive player because it would have made things tough for the coaching staff - having to consider dropping a leadership group member.

Sweet. Also a @@@@ speler