Autopsy Freo lose v Hawks Rd 18

[WilloTree]

When Hawks had it, they kicked it to a Hawks player.
When Freo Had it, they kicked it to a Hawks player.

Turnovers cost games and, at the end of the year, jobs.

Our midfield managed 1 goal between the lot of them over 120 minutes. Hawks had 11 players hit the scoreboard (including their ruckman). We need to get some sort of offensive contribution from our midfield. It's too easy for the opposition to play the game entirely on their terms if they know you're not going to be pressing forward at every opportunity. They can sit off, and wait for the turnover. It happened all day.

A few positives: Kersten's best game. Blakely's on the cusp of A grade. Darcy looks like he's played 50 already.

 

[DaveLister]

How long on the sidelines for Walters?

He indicated that he could play this weekend but until the injury report is updated tomorrow afternoon it is hard to say

 

[rgauci]

He indicated that he could play this weekend but until the injury report is updated tomorrow afternoon it is hard to say

There's been a press release. It's season.

 

[stax on the mull]

Around the stoppages it seemed similar to the Round 1 loss against Geelong. A lot of players coming in to help out when we won first possession but we didn't have any methodology to clear the ball out into space.

As soon as Hawthorn got hold of it, it was clinical the way they worked it out to a player outside the contest.

The most disappointing aspect in these types of losses where we are being beaten easily is to watch your players chasing a ball that they know they'll never get hold of as the opposition move it from one place to another.

Someone in the commentary (I think it was Brian Lake) said we were set up forward of the play for a run and carry game but we weren't running and carrying.

We had enough of those types of players in our side, but we gave them a lot of look ins by bringing too many numbers to the contest and only moving the ball short distances.

That's the aspect of the game that I thought we went backwards the most.

 

[Unique Name]

Nyhuis is fast. His burst speed is very good and he's agile. Great assets to go with his footy smarts. I hope with Spurr out he gets to play down back for the whole game.

 

[PapaJ]

Nyhuis is fast. His burst speed is very good and he's agile. Great assets to go with his footy smarts. I hope with Spurr out he gets to play down back for the whole game.

Why would Spurr be out?

Agree BTW, he's got a nice athleticism and body size to be that sort of back player that can take smalls but still have enough hight to take intercept marks which are so vital to good defensive set-ups these days. He's a nice kick too and thinks quickly. Has all the basics there to make it.


EDIT: I see, Spurr out with calf injury. Not great, but yeah, opens up that spot and already posted I'd like to see Nyhuis playing his more natural role for the whole game. Lock it in Eddie.

 

[Freomaniac]

Nyhuis is fast. His burst speed is very good and he's agile. Great assets to go with his footy smarts. I hope with Spurr out he gets to play down back for the whole game.

If Spurr is in, I want Nyhuis to play the whole game up forward

 

[meima]

Spurr out for three week ( calf injury)

 

[Freomaniac]

Spurr out for three week ( calf injury)

im sure we can find someone young to take his spot

 

[meima]

im sure we can find someone young to take his spot

Ibbo and sutty are pretty young and good depth also .

 

[Bicco]

Around the stoppages it seemed similar to the Round 1 loss against Geelong. A lot of players coming in to help out when we won first possession but we didn't have any methodology to clear the ball out into space.

As soon as Hawthorn got hold of it, it was clinical the way they worked it out to a player outside the contest.

The most disappointing aspect in these types of losses where we are being beaten easily is to watch your players chasing a ball that they know they'll never get hold of as the opposition move it from one place to another.

Someone in the commentary (I think it was Brian Lake) said we were set up forward of the play for a run and carry game but we weren't running and carrying.

We had enough of those types of players in our side, but we gave them a lot of look ins by bringing too many numbers to the contest and only moving the ball short distances.

That's the aspect of the game that I thought we went backwards the most.

We did this in the first half of 2015. One player would attack the ball and extract to the players waiting outside. If the ball was disposed of by the opposition, then it was a case of rinse and repeat.
How we lost that gameplan, seemingly overnight, is one of life's great mysteries.