Autopsy Hawthorn defeats the COLA Swans

[Manila_Hawk]

Here's a sort-of-interesting article from AFL Roar.

Points out all of the right things that Hawthorn did..... and then says it's all luck

http://www.theroar.com.au/2016/07/19/the-anatomy-of-a-win-hawthorn/

 

[Gralin]

Here's a sort-of-interesting article from AFL Roar.

Points out all of the right things that Hawthorn did..... and then says it's all luck

http://www.theroar.com.au/2016/07/19/the-anatomy-of-a-win-hawthorn/

Some anger there that his article four weeks ago stating we wouldn't win is starting to look a little shaky. "Expert"

 

[Davo23]

I know it's been a few years since he was on the Rules Committee, but I still think Kevin Bartlett has a lot to answer for.

Ha ha, yes, Bartlett spent his career playing for free kicks.
They had to change the rules to stop his cheating.

How ironic that he's behind many of the current stupid rule changes.

The little squib.

 

[TheFourPillars]

Some anger there that his article four weeks ago stating we wouldn't win is starting to look a little shaky. "Expert"

I just read the article man oh man, isn't he in for a rude shock when we pull out the A team for finals.

 

[halfback dasher]

...I got stuck on the penis artical , far more interesting !!

 

[kimbopen]

I know it's been a few years since he was on the Rules Committee, but I still think Kevin Bartlett has a lot to answer for.

He's another who is definitely #heafcuked!

 

[arupist]

...I got stuck on the penis artical , far more interesting !!

Not for me, but whatever floats your boat.

 

[cryptor]

Here's a sort-of-interesting article from AFL Roar.

Points out all of the right things that Hawthorn did..... and then says it's all luck

http://www.theroar.com.au/2016/07/19/the-anatomy-of-a-win-hawthorn/

Has a point regarding the luck component. Would be arrogant to say there wasn't a bit at play. What he fails to mention (though he is close to it) is that unlike Sydney's younger players ours have been far more likely to make good decisions late in these close games - or at least not make bad ones. Maybe that in itself has just been lucky but given how many times it's happened this year and Clarko and co's reputations for teaching and leadership it's far more likely that our younger players are simply better trained and prepared. Holds us in good stead for finals where it's those bottom 6 or so that can be the difference.

 

[Hawk Dork]

Here's a sort-of-interesting article from AFL Roar.

Points out all of the right things that Hawthorn did..... and then says it's all luck

http://www.theroar.com.au/2016/07/19/the-anatomy-of-a-win-hawthorn/

Check out Smith in that montage he starts behind the contest at the boundary and gets to the front of Gunstall in the space of Lewis's tap and Mitchells kick

 

[burger09]

...I got stuck on the penis artical

Interesting turn of phrase.

 

[Boo71]

Some anger there that his article four weeks ago stating we wouldn't win is starting to look a little shaky. "Expert"

It's much better analysis then pretty much all the other crap being brandied about as 'news'.

Lets face it, he only has a few inches of space to write an article and he's chosen to break down the play that put Hawthorn in front, in a close game, at least he had reasons why A made B happen and he decided to shit on a couple of kids as a reason, each to their own.

I think the fact they couldn't score from the sling shot for some unknown reason was a major factor and could have been analyzed, but everybody see it differently

But unless you watch Hawthorn every week you wouldn't know that maybe Smiths kick wasn't a shank and that we very often go for height on kicks into the forward line so we can get numbers under/near it, but more importantly set up our defence for the rebound while it's in the air.


Weren't the $wans the best scoring team from rebounding/sling shot or something? Clarko seems to have worked out that one.

 

[Gralin]

It's much better analysis then pretty much all the other crap being brandied about as 'news'.

Lets face it, he only has a few inches of space to write an article and he's chosen to break down the play that put Hawthorn in front, in a close game, at least he had reasons why A made B happen and he decided to shit on a couple of kids as a reason, each to their own.

I think the fact they couldn't score from the sling shot for some unknown reason was a major factor and could have been analyzed, but everybody see it differently

But unless you watch Hawthorn every week you wouldn't know that maybe Smiths kick wasn't a shank and that we very often go for height on kicks into the forward line so we can get numbers under/near it, but more importantly set up our defence for the rebound while it's in the air.


Weren't the $wans the best scoring team from rebounding/sling shot or something? Clarko seems to have worked out that one.

He gave an analysis of the play that was his opinion, Buckley and Scott have theirs, Longmire and Clarko would have theirs.
It was interesting how different to Scott and Buckley he saw it. Interesting he decided to shit on a couple of swans kids that were goal side for swans over all of their senior players.
Kingy on fox bagged Rohan for being too deep, Scott said that's how swans structure up with their loose man in defense, guess the coach analysis structures more than stat man Kingy.
That article just smacked of petulance to me and if he's trying to use the TV vision to make calls on structures but doesn't have the down the ground vision he's guessing even more than Bucks and Scott who at least would have an idea.

 

[Boo71]

He gave an analysis of the play that was his opinion, Buckley and Scott have theirs, Longmire and Clarko would have theirs.
It was interesting how different to Scott and Buckley he saw it. Interesting he decided to shit on a couple of swans kids that were goal side for swans over all of their senior players.
Kingy on fox bagged Rohan for being too deep, Scott said that's how swans structure up with their loose man in defense, guess the coach analysis structures more than stat man Kingy.
That article just smacked of petulance to me and if he's trying to use the TV vision to make calls on structures but doesn't have the down the ground vision he's guessing even more than Bucks and Scott who at least would have an idea.

Did you just completely miss the fact he is not a coach, or an ex player, but a writer for a blog site ?

How many other paid rag writers broke down a piece of play this week and put their opinion on it? Slobo and his arse bandit mates?

Thanks, but I'll take his "petulance" over the gossip riddled crap of almost every other rag written article this past week, even if I don't agree with his opinion.

Seems to me he is not the only one being childishly sulky.

Why don't you join the roar and do it better then?

 

[OzJohnnie]

Seems to me he is not the only one being childishly sulky.

No, you're doing quite well yourself in the childish behaviour department. Good point.

 

[MinerBoy]

Seems to me he is not the only one being childishly sulky.

Why don't you join the roar and do it better then?

Bravo

What a legend you are.

Your typical nothing post.

Quick run to the flogs, sorry mods, it's what you and your buddies do best.

You are the only one getting petulant and childish in this thread. No need to get so aggro because someone takes a different view on that article to you.

It's not like Gralin was having a go at you. Unless you're the writer

 

[Argy]

...I got stuck on the penis artical , far more interesting !!

That must be targeted advertising. I didn't see it!

 

[Davo23]

That must be targeted advertising. I didn't see it!

Ha ha, good point.

I always see lots of Dan Murphy ads!

 

[Gralin]

Did you just completely miss the fact he is not a coach, or an ex player, but a writer for a blog site ?

How many other paid rag writers broke down a piece of play this week and put their opinion on it? Slobo and his arse bandit mates?

Thanks, but I'll take his "petulance" over the gossip riddled crap of almost every other rag written article this past week, even if I don't agree with his opinion.

Seems to me he is not the only one being childishly sulky.

Why don't you join the roar and do it better then?

See I thought we were just having a discussion about how we viewed the article and his reading of the play. Yes it's nice that someone is trying to justify their position with analysis instead of stats but I don't agree with his analysis.
I also think his article was worded pretty poorly, the tone to me was someone very much like the main board when a poster has been called on their bullshit.
That's just my view. No need to get all worked up.

 

[Briar Gold]

Here's a sort-of-interesting article from AFL Roar.

Points out all of the right things that Hawthorn did..... and then says it's all luck

http://www.theroar.com.au/2016/07/19/the-anatomy-of-a-win-hawthorn/

At least the comments are about footy. A big step up from being Headfu**ed

 

[IdiotBox]

Cyril Rioli - he does it too often to say freak or fluke - like Burgoyne is in our best ever team with the Tuck's and the Matthews and the Dunstalls and the Hudsons

Hey, i know we've had multiples of all the others you've named but i can't think of another Dunstall that played for us?

 

[Dixie Flatline]

I applaud Mr Rose for taking the time to write an article breaking down the play and pointing out where Sydney fluffed it, but his strange contention that the moments later in a game matter more than the moments earlier in a game is baffling to me.

Across 120 minutes of game-time, there are multiple moments that create a matrix of opportunities for the end result of the game.

For example, from the 3m 36s mark of the second quarter, when Rioli kicked his first goal to put Hawthorn three points up (5.1.31 to 4.4.28), until the 27m 53s mark of the third quarter, when O'Rourke kicked his goal to cut Sydney's lead to five points (8.6.54 to 7.7.49), Hawthorn kicked 1.6.12 (including a rushed behind and a shot from Whitecross that hit the post) to 4.2.26.

Had Hawthorn managed to convert their opportunities and overall dominance in general play into a better return on the scoreboard, Hawthorn would likely have had a comfortable lead going into three-quarter time and the last quarter heroics of Burgoyne, Mitchell, Smith and Rioli may not have been needed.

 

[IdiotBox]

Breust was simply quiet. Couldn't get in to the game at all. It happens every now and then for all players. It was just his turn. No dramas.

At least the commentators can now drop the standard "he's kicked a goal in every game" line they trot out.
My gawd, they may have to think of something original!!

I reckon he'll kick a bag against the Tiggers this week.

 

[QuietB]

Has a point regarding the luck component. Would be arrogant to say there wasn't a bit at play. What he fails to mention (though he is close to it) is that unlike Sydney's younger players ours have been far more likely to make good decisions late in these close games - or at least not make bad ones. Maybe that in itself has just been lucky but given how many times it's happened this year and Clarko and co's reputations for teaching and leadership it's far more likely that our younger players are simply better trained and prepared. Holds us in good stead for finals where it's those bottom 6 or so that can be the difference.

There is one thing about Hawthron that fascinates me. That is the protection and resting, by position, of players throughout the season and this year it seems it has happened more than ever.

It has two massive benefits;

1. It is prolonging careers
2. It gives hawthorn options when they need to turn up the heat - options that very few other teams have, and options that are very difficult for other teams to plan for.

Burgoyne is the most obvious example. He gets hidden away in defence most of the year. This protects his knee and reduces his load generally. But then as soon as Clarko identifies a couple of games that requires something special - Port and Sydney - he moves Burgoyne into the guts.

Sydney have been planning all week to shut down Mitchell because if you do that you shut down hawthorn, thats what the media says, and when Burgoyne lets loose they have no idea what to do.

This is the other thing that fascinates me about this year. It is possible that the Hawks have over performed which is what their percentage suggests.

It is also possible that Clarko unleashes Burgoyne and Hodge and Lewis and Rioli and co for a whole month in September and the Hawks completely dominate.

I still do not know which it is but am obviously hoping for the latter.

 

[Davo23]

I applaud Mr Rose for taking the time to write an article breaking down the play and pointing out where Sydney fluffed it, but his strange contention that the moments later in a game matter more than the moments earlier in a game is baffling to me.

Across 120 minutes of game-time, there are multiple moments that create a matrix of opportunities for the end result of the game.

For example, from the 3m 36s mark of the second quarter, when Rioli kicked his first goal to put Hawthorn three points up (5.1.31 to 4.4.28), until the 27m 53s mark of the third quarter, when O'Rourke kicked his goal to cut Sydney's lead to five points (8.6.54 to 7.7.49), Hawthorn kicked 1.6.12 (including a rushed behind and a shot from Whitecross that hit the post) to 4.2.26.

Had Hawthorn managed to convert their opportunities and overall dominance in general play into a better return on the scoreboard, Hawthorn would likely have had a comfortable lead going into three-quarter time and the last quarter heroics of Burgoyne, Mitchell, Smith and Rioli may not have been needed.

Yes, we missed a couple of easy set shots in the 2nd and 3rd quarters, which could have broken the game open. They were misses by reliable players like Gunston, too.

We had chances to go 3 goals in front, nearly came back to haunt us.

 

[Gralin]

I applaud Mr Rose for taking the time to write an article breaking down the play and pointing out where Sydney fluffed it, but his strange contention that the moments later in a game matter more than the moments earlier in a game is baffling to me.

Across 120 minutes of game-time, there are multiple moments that create a matrix of opportunities for the end result of the game.

For example, from the 3m 36s mark of the second quarter, when Rioli kicked his first goal to put Hawthorn three points up (5.1.31 to 4.4.28), until the 27m 53s mark of the third quarter, when O'Rourke kicked his goal to cut Sydney's lead to five points (8.6.54 to 7.7.49), Hawthorn kicked 1.6.12 (including a rushed behind and a shot from Whitecross that hit the post) to 4.2.26.

Had Hawthorn managed to convert their opportunities and overall dominance in general play into a better return on the scoreboard, Hawthorn would likely have had a comfortable lead going into three-quarter time and the last quarter heroics of Burgoyne, Mitchell, Smith and Rioli may not have been needed.

Everyone is only analysing the last two minutes though, it's easier to come up with a story that way. It's like how only two of the four 50s paid during the game are discussed because they resulted in Hawks goals.
The article for me was him sticking to his guns that Hawks won't win it and writing an article to back his view up again. His argument was swans lost it so Hawks still can't win the flag. His view of the play unfolding is coloured by that like mine is coloured by being a Hawks supporter, yes there was luck in the sequence that got us in front but the players took some risks, played in front and worked hard to make it happen which he glosses over a bit.