dogwatch
Premium Platinum
- Thread starter
- #101
Here's a quick visual to show how it was a game of two halves.
It's just a table of the stats from the AFL website but luckily I was able to get a snap of it at HT.
To illustrate Hawthorn's early dominance I've highlighted in red where the differential was in their favour or in green if it was in our favour. (Turnovers work in reverse of course, you want the differential to be negative).
Clearly we turned it around on nearly every stat, either winning it or squaring it after HT.
Interestingly Hawthorn's heavy dominance in the first half meant that they still outnumbered us in many of the stats when added up across the whole game. This indicates to me that Hawthorn should have taken much more advantage on the scoreboard from that early dominance. Why they didn't is debatable - was it just inexperience? inaccurate kicking? the efforts of a few (like Liam Jones) to stem the bleeding?
Anyway the fact that we were almost level with them on the scoreboard at half time meant we had a great platform if we could turn around some of those stats in the second half. Which we did.
I'm sure in due course Oliver Gigacz will present us with more incisive stats than these for the whole game but I thought it was worth noting the change that came about after half time (or maybe started just before HT).
For those who were there, was it the whole team lifting, or the efforts of a few who had been a bit down in the first half? Or maybe it was Hawthorn running out of puff and being unable to maintain their early intensity? You don't mind that so much if you're a Hawks fan because you can see they have much of the necessary talent. They just need to get better with age and experience.
It's just a table of the stats from the AFL website but luckily I was able to get a snap of it at HT.
To illustrate Hawthorn's early dominance I've highlighted in red where the differential was in their favour or in green if it was in our favour. (Turnovers work in reverse of course, you want the differential to be negative).
Clearly we turned it around on nearly every stat, either winning it or squaring it after HT.
Interestingly Hawthorn's heavy dominance in the first half meant that they still outnumbered us in many of the stats when added up across the whole game. This indicates to me that Hawthorn should have taken much more advantage on the scoreboard from that early dominance. Why they didn't is debatable - was it just inexperience? inaccurate kicking? the efforts of a few (like Liam Jones) to stem the bleeding?
Anyway the fact that we were almost level with them on the scoreboard at half time meant we had a great platform if we could turn around some of those stats in the second half. Which we did.
I'm sure in due course Oliver Gigacz will present us with more incisive stats than these for the whole game but I thought it was worth noting the change that came about after half time (or maybe started just before HT).
For those who were there, was it the whole team lifting, or the efforts of a few who had been a bit down in the first half? Or maybe it was Hawthorn running out of puff and being unable to maintain their early intensity? You don't mind that so much if you're a Hawks fan because you can see they have much of the necessary talent. They just need to get better with age and experience.
