Aggro vs the Hawks

[handy point]

False bravado or a welcome tactic? I've not seen the Pies be such clear antagonists in a long time, and it appeared to be a team tactic, as opposed to one or two loose cannons.

I enjoyed the stoush between Tarrant and Franklin, but as much as I dislike the Hawks, I'll acknowledge they did well to not get "sucked" into it.

That said, it appeared to me (watching on the telly) that we matched them on the field whilst fired up, and once we settled down the Hawks gained ascendancy. Or was it coincidence?

Say we meet again this year, do we go with the same "tactic". Does Tarrant go all Lynch vs Wakelin from 2004, knowing it's his last game?

Just a few thoughts floating around in my noggin from last night.

 

[Mkcaptain]

I'd prefer the boys just concentrate on playing good football. But if the coaching panel thinks its the way to go who am I to say otherwise

 

[Collin Wood]

A welcome tactic. We always look better when we fly the flag...draw the line in the sand...flex the muscles and any other cliches I can come up with. Would have worked well on just about any other team but the dawks last night. They could do nothing wrong...from desperate toe-pokes and slaps finding team mates to the umpire assists.

 

[Captivating]

FAIL

 

[eddiebankbalance]

love to see some grunt!

 

[Mkcaptain]

You can draw a line in the sand without being silly about it

 

[mike_]

Aside from Tarrant getting under Buddy's skin, can you refer me to the displays of agro? There really was nothing else of note- not enough to start a thread on it anyway.

Compared to 2010 when we were tackling machines, we're playing like a bunch of neutered puppies when it comes to agro.

 

[SwanBet]

Certain players had the tactic, while other were simply standing up for their mates. Nothing wrong with it, Buckley did not tell the boys to ruffle the feathers.

TBH i loved what sinclair did, I have watched birchall closely this year(in my dt) and he loves to assert physical dominance on his opponents, sinclair stood up for himself, he didn't instigate but when Birchall hit him, sinclair would go back at him.

The game was ferocious in that first half, it was a battle between two modern day heavy weights fighting for supremacy and this time Hawthorn came out on top.

 

[SuperSub17]

**** Duddy Shanklin. Taz destroyed him in the first half. He got 2 goals in last quarter junk time, and another from a bullshit free right in front 10m out.

I didn't mind Taz doing it tbh. According to Jay Clark on Channel 7 tonight, the AFL is apparently "unhappy" with our tactics...

 

[darcy tyler]

**** Duddy Shanklin. Taz destroyed him in the first half. He got 2 goals in last quarter junk time, and another from a bullshit free right in front 10m out.

I didn't mind Taz doing it tbh. According to Jay Clark on Channel 7 tonight, the AFL is apparently "unhappy" with our tactics...

that 'bullshit' free kick was given for a blatant hold of the arm. how about you open your other eye when you watch the replay?

and as far as franklin being 'destroyed' by taz, cloke had only managed 2 goals until the 20-minute mark of the 3rd. did schoenmakers 'destroy' cloke? you can't have it both ways.

if i were you i'd be more worried about collingwood's on-field leadership in big finals rather than coming up with child-like excuses.

 

[blaze036]

when taz was really roughing up buddy, he seriouslly struggled and was all over the place. After he got his cheap goal thanks to benny johnson and we stopped getting into him he started to dominate. It was a good tactic, but the players stop executing it in the 2nd half

 

[larrikan]

Then lets pay every blatant hold of the arm free kick 80 metres off the ball when the contest is not being affected. AFL footy is dead if the umpires start this kind of grand standing. BTW how does the best contested mark in the game - Travis Cloke - not mark a high percentage of his contests. Oh wait, blatant holding of his arms. Do you think Cloke initiates holding with his power. Taz was exceptional on Buddy last night.

The aggro was both ways. Finals footy is here. Pity umpires and AFL want to sanitise the finals now.

 

[darcy tyler]

Then lets pay every blatant hold of the arm free kick 80 metres off the ball when the contest is not being affected. AFL footy is dead if the umpires start this kind of grand standing. BTW how does the best contested mark in the game - Travis Cloke - not mark a high percentage of his contests. Oh wait, blatant holding of his arms. Do you think Cloke initiates holding with his power. Taz was exceptional on Buddy last night.

The aggro was both ways. Finals footy is here. Pity umpires and AFL want to sanitise the finals now.

dude, lay off the drinks before you post. yes, taz was good. imo, was lucky not to give away a couple of frees in front of goal. but nevertheless, he was good, as we exect him to be.
obstructing an opponent by holding his arm is always going to be a free kick. i'm really not sure what you're on about with the 80 metres off the ball and grandstanding umpire stuff.
yes, the game had a high level of intensity, but it's quite clear that collingwood was given a directive to be more agressive than usual.

 

[larrikan]

I "exect" you should lay off the drinks lol.

Just glad you guys don't hold and there was no aggro from your players too. If there was a directive from Bucks then he must think you are soft which I doubt. It's finals. Players a hyped up and Taz and Buddy were at each other from the get go which set the tone for the rest of the game. And I'll take the tactic every time if it results in a goal while six Hawks players are worrying about a blew on our HFF.

 

[darcy tyler]

Realistic not simplistic! If you knew anything about your team, you would know why you are able to get buddy one on one but that's probably a little too simplistic for you.

dude, making a general comment like "buddy was only 1 on 1 the whole time" is something i'd call simplistic. basically, you're just saying something and kind of hoping it's right.
i seem to remember just before half time when buddy got one out on a lead. technically he was on no one and then maybe 30 seconds later he took a mark in the middle of about 3 or 4 pies. doesn't sound like 1 on 1 to me.

 

[larrikan]

Dude, way past your bed time. I didn't make the comment but agree with the implication as a comparison between Cloke and Buddy regarding Taz's performance. Maybe that was too difficult for you to figure out.

 

[darcy tyler]

I "exect" you should lay off the drinks lol.

Just glad you guys don't hold and there was no aggro from your players too. If there was a directive from Bucks then he must think you are soft which I doubt. It's finals. Players a hyped up and Taz and Buddy were at each other from the get go which set the tone for the rest of the game. And I'll take the tactic every time if it results in a goal while six Hawks players are worrying about a blew on our HFF.

honest typo. at least what i write makes sense....lol

taz was definitely at buddy, i agree with you there. you see, usually when there's that kind of agressiveness in a game, it's the underdog going at the favourite in an attempt to put them off their game; it's a well known tactic that's been employed by all clubs at some point in time.

but i really don't see how that set the tone for maxwell breaking someone's nose.

 

[coldpieswarmbeer]

I didn't like it. I agree that it was a clear team tactic - and the fact that it was told me one thing:

We were not confident in our own game!

On the otherside, Hawks are supremely confident.. which is why they didn't get sucked in and stuck to their own style

Not good signs.

I still think we're a chance to make the GF.. but if we face the hawks, I really can't see any way of beating them.

 

[lenny20]

that 'bullshit' free kick was given for a blatant hold of the arm. how about you open your other eye when you watch the replay?

and as far as franklin being 'destroyed' by taz, cloke had only managed 2 goals until the 20-minute mark of the 3rd. did schoenmakers 'destroy' cloke? you can't have it both ways.

if i were you i'd be more worried about collingwood's on-field leadership in big finals rather than coming up with child-like excuses.

That "bullshit" free kick was pretty soft. As was the Hale free kick when scores were level in the second. The Roughead non-holding-the-ball goal was pretty painful when scores were level in the first. And I think that if the shoe had been on the other foot, you'd be able to see how very disappointed we all were when Cloke was lining up for a set shot from just outside the goalsquare, to make the margin only 11 points in the third, only to have the ball suddenly turned over for a goal thanks to an unseen incident one hundred metres off the ball.

I know you think that your opinions hold a lot of extra weight right now because the team you support currently contains the highest percentage of talented footballers in the league. But please don't let this false sense of entitlement lull you into the trap of so many of your bigfooty brethren by coming to opposition boards, denigrating passionate and hurting supporters with "child-like" name-calling, taking snide potshots at an opposition team's on-field leadership in pressure games (notwithstanding that your own team's on-field leadership in pressure games has been nothing short of abysmal for every crunch game over the past three years), and generally displaying a lack of any humility whatsoever in victory.

 

[Rioli magic]

I didn't like it. I agree that it was a clear team tactic - and the fact that it was told me one thing:

We were not confident in our own game!

This was my interpretation of it. Can't blame you for trying something that might make a difference and help get a win, but it looked like a desperate ploy.

 

[Gambit78]

1) The biggest sniper in the game was Jarryd Roughead.
2) Apart from Taz, who else engaged in 'roughing them up' tactics? Clearly not a team tactic.
3) It's not Maxwell's fault that Puopolo is a midget who wasn't watching where he was going.
4) And considering Hawthorn is such an impressively physical side, its supporters are remarkably soft observers. Very precious. It's annoying.

 

[SuperSub17]

that 'bullshit' free kick was given for a blatant hold of the arm. how about you open your other eye when you watch the replay?

Actually, if you open your other eye, Franklin also has a fistful of Tarrant's jumper.
Bullshit.

 

[76woodenspooners]

In answer to the OP ...

I think it depends on how the aggression is channeled.

If the aggression is simply bluster designed to get under their opposition's skin then it's a bad thing: we focus on the opposition, the opposition focus on the ball, the opposition wins.

But if the aggression is channeled at the ball (or the poor sod from the opposition with the ball who is about to be drilled into the turf) then that's constructive and that's a good thing.

 

[bradrowe#32]

Sometimes I wish we had a couple of meatheads that would get all up in the other teams' grill.

 

[Bay Pie]

Heath Shaw said it wasn't something the team discussed at all. Taz just took it on himself. It certainly rattled Franklin. He was MIA in the 1st half. Snuck a cheaply just before HT to get on the board then a few in junk time.

Taz did a very good job as did Reid who destroyed Roughead.