I don't get this talk about Ian Hill being an iffy selection. We need a small forward and he looks a good one. He is related to the Hill brothers who are consistent high possession-getters and, in Stephen's case, one of our all-time greats. And he plays a bit like Walters who despite being skinny and small is also incredibly reliable, resilient, one of our greats and the only guy in the '13 GF who looked comfortable from the start of the match.
He has absolutely nothing in common with a guy that was a square peg that we stupidly tried to squeeze into a round hole (Simpson), other than the colour of his skin, which is irrelevant.
If he went to Trinity, let's say, that would be relevant because a decent recruiter would be questioning whether he was on the radar for being part of a boys club rather than on merits. So I'd say Ian Hill has got to this position on his merits alone, maybe with a little help from his name.
Back in the day, the three best players on my junior team (I wasn't one of them) were from public schools, but they couldn't get a look-in at Claremont colts. The next three best were from Scotch and Christchurch and were given ample opportunities due to their connections at the club and eventually went nowhere because they weren't up to it. If selections had been based on merit, Claremont would've had at least one gun midfielder who I reckon could've been very good at AFL level. Anyhoo, privilege and all that. How many other guns are lost to the game below colts level?
By the way, I would say that the most natural footballer we've ever had was a flabby whitefella (not Cam), called Hasleby.
