Analysis Hawthorn rebuild: are they tanking?

[peetoo]

They'd also lost the best player of the past 20 years.

Hawthorn lost arguably the second best and their fans carried on like it was a minor miracle their premiership winning team won again.

Especially as we didnt have a stack of multiple AA players like Geelong eh?

 

[sr36]

In 2023 we were the 16th best side at defending transition, as of Round 8 in 2024 we are 3rd.

These are outcomes - they're not the system.

All teams have to tweak stuff every week depending on their opposition or personnel.

Outcomes like this can occur simply because your midfield is losing or you're defending a bit deeper, giving more opportunities for your own quick transition and thus cleaner opportunities for opposition transition.

 

[Holy Rioli]

Here's a stat for you: 5.

That's the number of players who've kicked more goals than Mihocek since his debut in the middle of 2018.

I'm pretty sure that Chol isn't one of
Hawkins, Riewoldt, Walker, Jeremy or Charlie Cameron.

But Mabior and Brody are pretty much the same standard. I've got a 7 game footy wire comparison that shows that Mihocek has been statistically better in those 7 games, but not enough for me to be able to separate them, what with a new system and Luke Bruest being injured...

Off topic but Breust has outscored Mihocek 227 vs 226 goals since 2018. Played less games too so make that 6 players.

 

[sr36]

Off topic but Breust has outscored Mihocek 227 vs 226 goals since 2018. Played less games too so make that 6 players.

Re-read the parameters - from Mihocek's debut - so it doesn't include all of 2018. Bruest hasn't - Charlie Curnow may have by now as this was from the end of last year.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

These are outcomes - they're not the system.

All teams have to tweak stuff every week depending on their opposition or personnel.

Outcomes like this can occur simply because your midfield is losing or you're defending a bit deeper, giving more opportunities for your own quick transition and thus cleaner opportunities for opposition transition.

You’re taking the piss now, aren’t you?

Hawthorn have quite clearly changed/added parts of their game over the last 12 months such is the amount of learning and development needed when we are routinely rolling out with 8-12 players under 50 games, to suggest otherwise is nonsense.

 

[sr36]

You’re taking the piss now, aren’t you?

Hawthorn have quite clearly changed/added parts of their game over the last 12 months such is the amount of learning and development needed when we are routinely rolling out with 8-12 players under 50 games, to suggest otherwise is nonsense.

You're portraying the coaching as like the recruiting - a bit all over the shop. Is he changing his mind willy nilly or just not pitching it to the level of the players.

 

[SSSSSS]

They'd also lost the best player of the past 20 years.

Hawthorn lost arguably the second best and their fans carried on like it was a minor miracle their premiership winning team won again.

I mean it's apples and oranges.

They lost GAJ to a basket case side.

We lost Buddy to a direct competitor and beat them in the Grand Final.

It's also a lot easier to replace GAJ with one of your many midfielders. It's a bit harder to replace the best CHF of the century with Ryan Schoenmakers.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

You're portraying the coaching as like the recruiting - a bit all over the shop. Is he changing his mind willy nilly or just not pitching it to the level of the players.

You’re struggling, aren’t you.

Every team in the comp is at different points of building and developing their system, and it’s really not that hard to understand that a side as young as ours would be one that is still building parts of its system/gamestyle.

 

[Dewyyyyy]

Who are the players that you're talking about?

I don't think you're going to change much at all about your defensive structure or running patterns - some different strategy regarding forward entries - encouraging more inboard options rather than going long down the line...

Just to inform. Structure is a lot more than just defensive structure, running patterns, strategy with forward entries. It’s a whole thing. It is taught over time to add differing components and make sure they’re second nature rather than to have to think about that whilst playing. Some players still get too structure focused and loses their natural game.

This is why it takes time, this is also different for different clubs as everyone plays a different style, even if they’re similar.

The structure being different in anyway, would create a second guessing and that will affect how players play. It did with Hawthorn last year, unable to make score from clearance because of a lacking tall forward of the ball (one who was 188cm) and not having the trust or structure. Which also meant turnovers were more damaging. Despite being a very good clearance and ball winning side. Which changed heavily once Lewis came back into the fold. Not entirely hard to understand.

 

[Dewyyyyy]

These are outcomes - they're not the system.

All teams have to tweak stuff every week depending on their opposition or personnel.

Outcomes like this can occur simply because your midfield is losing or you're defending a bit deeper, giving more opportunities for your own quick transition and thus cleaner opportunities for opposition transition.

No it is system.

Every club has different systems and they take time, defensive running is one of the key components which has to be second nature otherwise it won’t work, plus a chain link that if one breaks it all breaks.

For example, my old side use to play a cyclone defense. Which was from Box Hill, where our coach played. Where the HF, Wings and HB would rotate in a cyclone.

If you’re on ball side, you go at your man, second and third men (most dangerous) and pressure. If that gets out either side you rotate around through defense in a cyclone motion. If you’re on the far side or fat side of the ground. You would rotate around to cover the players who push up, and then when they push back you cyclone back around.

Time to learn and master but also for it to be second nature which sets up an offensive structure a lot easier, the better you defend structurally the better position you’ll be offensively.

 

[Dewyyyyy]

You're portraying the coaching as like the recruiting - a bit all over the shop. Is he changing his mind willy nilly or just not pitching it to the level of the players.

Coaching is not linear. Things may not work and need to be tinkered or changed. But the DNA is the same it’s just the honey comb or puzzle pieces that need to be put together. Which takes time when there isn’t a cemented best 22, and the high amount of youth and new players. It’s about teaching the players to make it second nature.

 

[HairyO]

Who are the players that you're talking about?

I don't think you're going to change much at all about your defensive structure or running patterns - some different strategy regarding forward entries - encouraging more inboard options rather than going long down the line...

Lewis and Chol vs Dear. 2 guys with 6 or 7 years experience vs a guy with 1 game.

Defense sure you wouldnt change. But we are talking about forwards. It would be very different because most likely the mids will be looking for smalls in space rather than talls leading.

 

[sr36]

Just to inform. Structure is a lot more than just defensive structure, running patterns, strategy with forward entries. It’s a whole thing. It is taught over time to add differing components and make sure they’re second nature rather than to have to think about that whilst playing. Some players still get too structure focused and loses their natural game.

This is why it takes time, this is also different for different clubs as everyone plays a different style, even if they’re similar.

The structure being different in anyway, would create a second guessing and that will affect how players play. It did with Hawthorn last year, unable to make score from clearance because of a lacking tall forward of the ball (one who was 188cm) and not having the trust or structure. Which also meant turnovers were more damaging. Despite being a very good clearance and ball winning side. Which changed heavily once Lewis came back into the fold. Not entirely hard to understand.

Running patterns create and allow the midfield and forward structure and ball movement So defensive system and running patterns is your structureu. Your cyclone example is a running pattern.

Yes agree that some players don't get it. It's why that recruit with all the tools doesn't kick on. They don't get the system can't read the play and get lost .

 

[The 747]

You're portraying the coaching as like the recruiting - a bit all over the shop. Is he changing his mind willy nilly or just not pitching it to the level of the players.

You will find that anything and everything under the sun will be employed before anyone admits the coach might not be as good as they believe he is.

 

[Dewyyyyy]

Running patterns create and allow the midfield and forward structure and ball movement So defensive system and running patterns is your structure

Yes agree that some players don't get it. It's why that recruit with all the tools doesn't kick on. They don't get the system can't read the play and get lost .

Running patterns are more than you think. It’s defensive running as I mentioned, it’s running specifically for defenders, midfielders and forwards. It’s gelling with teammates to create the trust and link which is what also takes time. Structure is also setup defensively, midfield and offensively, but with multiple setups, because every team would have a multitude of different setups and structures. You also have ball movement and how that is structured and displayed. And ball movement different from different stages of the game, areas of the ground and when a side is selected each week. There’s even more to it than this but all of this will take seasons to develop and even longer to master and perfect, which takes even longer with a younger group.

You also don’t kick out talented players because they’re struggling with structure or focusing too much on it.

 

[sr36]

Running patterns are more than you think. It’s defensive running as I mentioned, it’s running specifically for defenders, midfielders and forwards. It’s gelling with teammates to create the trust and link which is what also takes time. Structure is also setup defensively, midfield and offensively, but with multiple setups, because every team would have a multitude of different setups and structures. You also have ball movement and how that is structured and displayed. And ball movement different from different stages of the game, areas of the ground and when a side is selected each week. There’s even more to it than this but all of this will take seasons to develop and even longer to master and perfect, which takes even longer with a younger group.

You also don’t kick out talented players because they’re struggling with structure or focusing too much on it.

They're the ones who do a full 5 years - before being delisted.

You've started by saying that there's more to system than defensive structure and running patterns and talked a lot about defensive structure and running patterns...

But yes, ball movement and encouraging particular choices is important, but once again - the choices are limited by the running patterns. Player movement limits or enables ball movement.

 

[Dewyyyyy]

They're the ones who do a full 5 years - before being delisted.

You've started by saying that there's more to system than defensive structure and running patterns and talked a lot about defensive structure and running patterns...

But yes, ball movement and encouraging particular choices is important, but once again - the choices are limited by the running patterns. Player movement limits or enables ball movement.

You give players like that time because structure can become second nature and they can learn to not have to focus on it. I’ve done it before playing and I see it in players at the level currently. But if you’re talented you get backed in.

It’s more to just saying there’s “one defensive structure and one running pattern etc” there are heaps of them, they take time to learn and then they lead into even more structure and DNA. It’s not as simple as just “x” and that was clearly explained.

Absolutely it does but it’s a chain link and that’s suggested by you. But again structure is broken down like a million little dots by a microscope and are taught to then be second nature.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

You will find that anything and everything under the sun will be employed before anyone admits the coach might not be as good as they believe he is.

I wouldn’t hitch myself to sr36’s argument if I was you.

 

[sr36]

It’s more to just saying there’s “one defensive structure and one running pattern etc” there are heaps of them, they take time to learn and then they lead into even more structure and DNA. It’s not as simple as just “x” and that was clearly explained.

Yep and if you're layering it up before the playing group get the foundation, then it's poor teaching. And it's why cutting guys like Mitchell and JOM when you've got a developing group is crazy.

I'm of the view that game sense and being able to quickly see and adjust to patterns is innate - as innate as skill and athletic attributes. Players can and do improve in all regards, but the good ones get it and process it more quickly and that doesn't change much. It's why good players play early - even those who are new to the game - and most project players become unsuccessful projects - they just don't ever have enough game sense.

 

[Dewyyyyy]

Yep and if you're layering it up before the playing group get the foundation, then it's poor teaching. And it's why cutting guys like Mitchell and JOM when you've got a developing group is crazy.

I'm of the view that game sense and being able to quickly see and adjust to patterns is innate - as innate as skill and athletic attributes. Players can and do improve in all regards, but the good ones get it and process it more quickly and that doesn't change much. It's why good players play early - even those who are new to the game - and most project players become unsuccessful projects.

It’s why you slowly build the game plan. It takes time and easily 2/3 pre seasons just to get a base down. And no, as important as experience is, you’ve also gotta be able to do a role and neither were able to, the midfield performed better without them and they weren’t able to develop second roles.

I think it is to an extent, some people get it really quickly, some take time. I believe that if a player is a good talent or good enough but can’t get continuity with the structure, or most commonly will focus too heavily on that and not let their natural game develop and perform. That there are reasons for this, people that are naturally overthinkers, not just football related will likely have struggles making it second nature trusting that and then backing their instinct. It’s a development process and it isn’t linear with every player being the same or even on one heavy leaning spectrum. It isn’t “he either has it or doesn’t”. There is a range.

 

[sr36]

It’s why you slowly build the game plan. It takes time and easily 2/3 pre seasons just to get a base down. And no, as important as experience is, you’ve also gotta be able to do a role and neither were able to, the midfield performed better without them and they weren’t able to develop second roles.

I think it is to an extent, some people get it really quickly, some take time. I believe that if a player is a good talent or good enough but can’t get continuity with the structure, or most commonly will focus too heavily on that and not let their natural game develop and perform. That there are reasons for this, people that are naturally overthinkers, not just football related will likely have struggles making it second nature trusting that and then backing their instinct. It’s a development process and it isn’t linear with every player being the same or even on one heavy leaning spectrum. It isn’t “he either has it or doesn’t”. There is a range.

Hasn't for the good coaches. Kingsley built a base that could have won the flag with a bit of luck in Season 1.
Macrae a bit different as he only had to reform the attacking patterns - the defensive ones were already close enough for it to just be tweaking.

Who knows with Clarkson - he hasn't got the players - but he's had enough to build a system that they're on the same page with.

 

[sr36]

It’s why you slowly build the game plan. It takes time and easily 2/3 pre seasons just to get a base down. And no, as important as experience is, you’ve also gotta be able to do a role and neither were able to, the midfield performed better without them and they weren’t able to develop second roles.

I think it is to an extent, some people get it really quickly, some take time. I believe that if a player is a good talent or good enough but can’t get continuity with the structure, or most commonly will focus too heavily on that and not let their natural game develop and perform. That there are reasons for this, people that are naturally overthinkers, not just football related will likely have struggles making it second nature trusting that and then backing their instinct. It’s a development process and it isn’t linear with every player being the same or even on one heavy leaning spectrum. It isn’t “he either has it or doesn’t”. There is a range.

What do you mean by a player being a good talent? I'd have game sense as a talent in the same way as skill and athleticism is. Draftees improve in all 3 areas, but game sense is the hardest to get to AFL standard if it's not there already.

Pies have recently switched to prioritising running and our recent picks are super fast, but I guarantee you we're going to have a lot of busts. I suppose the theory is that when it's not a bust it'll be a bigger win than drafting with a higher priority on game sense.

 

[Judd2Sewell]

Hasn't for the good coaches. Kingsley built a base that could have won the flag with a bit of luck in Season 1.
Macrae a bit different as he only had to reform the attacking patterns - the defensive ones were already close enough for it to just be tweaking.

Who knows with Clarkson - he hasn't got the players - but he's had enough to build a system that they're on the same page with.

Kingsley, Scott, Macrae, etc. all inherited much better playing lists that didn't require a large overhaul. They all just really needed a tidy-up with the gameplan.

 

[Jim Prideaux]

Hasn't for the good coaches. Kingsley built a base that could have won the flag with a bit of luck in Season 1.
Macrae a bit different as he only had to reform the attacking patterns - the defensive ones were already close enough for it to just be tweaking.

Who knows with Clarkson - he hasn't got the players - but he's had enough to build a system that they're on the same page with.

Really, I’m intrigued, how’s it looking for them?

 

[sr36]

Kingsley, Scott, Macrae, etc. all inherited much better playing lists that didn't require a large overhaul. They all just really needed a tidy-up with the gameplan.

Kingsley's was a total overhaul of the system.

2 and a third years is enough to have a really solid base in place.

Personally I think Mitchell will end up a good coach. You can see some really well drilled attacking patterns sometimes.

At the moment he doesn't have the players and you can see some pretty clear rookie errors.

The cutting of experience would be a coach killer if he wasn't a Hawthorn great that will get extra time.

And the plan is chopping and changing too much. You watch a Hawthorn game and you don't know whether they're going to be a sling shot team on the day or whether they're going to be trying to chip it through the press.The good teams and coaches tweak for opposition strengths and weaknesses. But most of the signatures remain. Hawthorn totally change.