Player Review: Hamish Hartlett

Written by Thommo on January 26 2017

Hartlett, the only player to actually honour a contract!
Hartlett, the only player to actually honour a contract!

Dob: 14/08/1990

Team: Port Adelaide

Position: Midfield/Defender

Supercoach Price: $423,700

2016 Average: 77.87

2016 Games: 15

Bye Round: 9

Past (2015-2011): 101, 97, 91, 91, 92


Age/Durability: ***

After struggling with soft tissue injuries early in his career, Hartlett improved his durability from 2013 to 2015, playing 20+ games each season. Unfortunately these soft-tissue injuries returned in 2016, as Hartlett missed 2 games with a hamstring injury in Rounds 2 and 3 and then 5 games with a calf injury from Rounds 19-23.

2016 Form: *

Given his talent, Hartlett was terrible in 2016 dropping his average below 90 for the first time since 2010. Even though he played outside midfield and loose in defence his possession count dropped to just 18 touches per match compared with 20+ possessions every year since 2010. This was partly due to injuries but at times he disappeared for large stretches of the game and appeared disinterested.

It was no surprise that Port Adelaide shopped him around at season’s end.

Consistency: **

As expected, Hartlett was particularly inconsistent in 2016 with 9 of his 15 games adding up to less than 80 SC points. He was a little more consistent in 2015 with only 3 sub-80 scores but that was a bit of an outlier year. Don’t expect a tidy standard deviation from HH

Ceiling: *

From 40 scores of 100+, only 9 have been over 130 since 2011. You might get an odd 130-150 score from Hartlett but don’t hold your breath.

Tag: *****

He hasn’t been tagged since 2014 and he won’t be any time soon unless he seriously lifts his form.

Value: ****

Hartlett can comfortably average in the mid-90s as he did in 2014 and 2015 so he’s 15+ points under-priced to start 2017.

Overall: **1/2

2016 was a horrible year for Hartlett, dropping his rating massively. The silver-lining is that he is super cheap and great value to start 2016.


Looking at pure statistics from 2016, you wouldn’t even look at Hartlett but he’s obviously much better than what the numbers indicate. If he can reproduce a year like 2015 you’d be happy to have him in your back-line especially when you consider his unique Round 9 bye.

I guess the question is: Will the off-season trade talk fire Hartlett up in 2017?

Not to be confused with this guy!
Not to be confused with this guy!

Are you considering Hartlett in your backline?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Leave a comment / Scroll to bottom

7 thoughts on “Player Review: Hamish Hartlett”

    1. Don’t do it Mottsy. He’s 3 disinterested games away from playing 2nds.

      I’ll wade into this one a bit being one of the few Port supporters on the site.

      The trade talks were the kick up the ass he needed, came back with the 1-4 years on his own and looks as fit as he ever has. Training primarily with the mids again too. Lot of talk he may be being groomed as a run with but until we see him play it’s hard to say.

      The thing is with Hartlett he’s neither big enough to be inside or quick enough to be outside, not to mention the fact that when he plays outside he’s likely to tear a hammy, and when he’s inside he’s likely to pop a shoulder.

      I just don’t see the upside In all honesty.

      Hodge is your man if you’re going to take an underpriced injury prone defender IMO. Equally as likely to miss games, but with a much higher celing.


      1. Big Russ, that’s a fantastic post. I love feedback from fans of teams because as much as I watch WAY too much footy, I don’t have the great perspective of a member.

        Keep the detail reviews coming.

        Regarding Hodgey, I can give the word of a long-term Hawks’ member. He has a great ceiling and upside but who knows where Clarko will play him and when he’ll get injured or rested. I reckon there are better options than Hodgey as well (despite loving those dreamy blue eyes).



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *