Review Monday's expert (On Saturday!): Adelaide v Hawthorn @ Adelaide Oval

[Hank93]

12 points felt like 50 points at the end of the game. It was clear that one team is still a premiership contender; the other a solid team that can compete with the best but is still years away from genuinely fighting for the flag.

Hawthorn were just a little bit better in all areas.

· Better ball use.

· Efficiency going inside 50.

· Sticking tackles.

· Applying more pressure on the opponent.

· Less fumbles.

· More effective use of handball.



Brad Crouch

What a gun. His ability to win an enormous amount of ball, make good decisions and take the pressure off Danger/Sloane is hugely beneficial to our side. Shame Macrae had 43 disposals today to take the attention away from how amazing Crouchy is for a 20 year old. Currently averaging 23.9 disposals a game after just 18 games in his career.


Handball Happy

I actually liked our desire to use the handball more to create more run. I’d prefer to make mistakes doing this then being stagnate and going no where.

But it showed that when you play risky, fast break footy, you need to be ultra clean with disposal and avoid fumbling the ball, and we weren’t quite up to it.

Some of the handball use was good, but still too much of it was used when under pressure, or to stagnate teammates which created pressure. This then led to an unbelievable amount of smothered kicks.

Tippett who?

OK, we’d clearly be a better side with him here, but the new number 4 is certainly turning it on this season. 5 goals straight, currently 11th on the coleman medal charts with 34 goals this season. With still 6 games remaining, he could kick 50 goals which would be a huge achievement for someone with just 42 games under his belt. He’s fast, athletic, can now take a strong mark and is clearly getting more accurate in front of goal. Good signs in the post Pods era.

Selection:

It may not have decided the game, but again I think we missed a massive opportunity to give players like Luke Thompson and Matt Crouch (Or Lyons/Grigg) to play on the big stage. Porps’ two disposals gave us nothing towards this game, and clearly didn’t benefit us in the future. He’s an absolute lock to be delisted. Grigg had 33 disposals, 11 marks, 5 tackles and 2 goals against South. Lyons 23 disposals and 2 goals, Crouch 24 disposals and 1 goal. Surely, SURELY these players can’t do any worse than what Porplyzia is providing. These players are the future, and playing at least one of them won’t be detrimental to the result.

I’m still dumbfounded at the lack of faith in Luke Thompson. He plays in a Semi Final, performs well. He plays in a prelim, again holds his own. The Powers two tall forwards contribute three goals in the showdown, a good result for our backline without Truck. We need to prepare for 2015 and beyond, and currently Talia is the only tall that is a lock in our backline. If we don’t start fast tracking Thompson, Hartigan or even Shaw, we’re in massive trouble.

Stat sheet:

We had 39 more disposals than the Hawks and still had a poorer disposal efficiency, 74 to 76%. This shows the difference in class between us and them. We lost the tackle count (Pressure on the ball carrier), the 1%ers (pressure again), marks (Ball use), marks inside 50 (Ball movement going forward), clangers (composure), stoppage clearances (Smahed 35-25 concerning, set up around the ground).



Other points:

· Gunston is annoyingly good

· Eddie had a stinker

· The t-shirts were awesome, shame Eddie couldn’t step up for the big occasion

· Another awesome crowd, more 50,000 attendances at Adelaide Oval this year than the entire history of AFL at Football Park.

· Razor Ray actually explained the siren stuff up fairly well (He could have left out saying retarted). If he’s told to call the end of the quarter when he his audible sound in his earpiece, then that’s what he should do. Not his fault, just a stuff up that he couldn’t control.

· 70 uncontested marks to our 43. Too many loose men, and when they kick it as well as they do, it’s going to kill you.

ADELAIDE 3.0 7.4 11.4 14.8 (92)

HAWTHORN 4.3 8.4 13.9 15.14 (104)


GOALS

Adelaide: Jenkins 5, Podsiadly 2, Walker 2, Wright, Betts, Lynch, Smith

Hawthorn: Gunston 4, Breust 3, Simpkin 2, McEvoy 2, Ceglar 2, Burgoyne, Duryea


INJURIES

Adelaide: Jenkins (rolled ankle), Thompson (hamstring)

Hawthorn: Nil


SUBSTITUTES

Adelaide: Scott Thompson replaced by Jason Porplyzia in the final quarter

Hawthorn: Will Langford replaced by Ben Ross in the final quarter

Reports: Nil

Umpires: Nicholls, Chamberlain, McInerney

Official crowd: 50,321 at Adelaide Oval


POTY:

5: Dangerfield

4: Crouch

3: Jenkins

2: Sloane

1: Smith


Match replay:

http://www.afl.com.au/video/smart-replay?round=CD_R201401417&matchId=CD_M20140141701


Sando’s presser:

http://www.afc.com.au/video/2014-07-12/sando-post-match-presser-round-17

Pictures

 

[Bailey01]

Danger, Crouch, JJ, Sloane and Smith got my vote

 

[Deaneus!]

Great write up Hank.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

· Efficiency going inside 50.

Watching the replay Channel 7 had Tom Harley parked up inside our coaching box. He made mention a couple of times that our coaches wanted more 'deep' inside 50's - long and high into our tall forwards. This is so different to how the Hawks approach it. They do use the long option at times but their ability to hit players on the lead, kick to space or isolate players in one-on-one contests is excellent. We butchered a few of the chances we did have to hit up short targets (Lynch twice) but usually relied on the long bomb (often to Betts). It just seems we are so one dimensional and predictable.

I wonder as well if the fact that our game plan only needs us to hoof the ball in high and long means that players like Grigg aren't valued as much? And when we draft players, footskills may not be at the top of the list of desirable traits. We don't need players with good footskills to bomb it to the hot spot.

As a result of this game style, our forwards don't lead nearly enough. Betts used to lead all the time and was quite effective playing as a pseudo tall out of the goal square for Carlton. Walker was excellent on the lead early in his career. Now our forwards get under the footy and almost try to work backwards as the high kick comes in. We don't lead up at the ball carrier, or create space for each other.

· More effective use of handball.

Their hands around contests are superb. Crouch aside, their ability to take the ball cleanly in traffic, absorb, dodge or evade the pressure we applied and to find a team mate by hand is in another stratosphere compared to ours. So many of our stoppage 'wins' involved a rushed kick forward under pressure. And when we did use a few handballs we were usually forced way out wide whereas they were so creative and opened us up through the middle. Our raw stoppage numbers this season are quite good but it doesn't seem as though we are really controlling the footy and causing the damage we could be.

 

[DD#23]

Watching the replay Channel 7 had Tom Harley parked up inside our coaching box. He made mention a couple of times that our coaches wanted more 'deep' inside 50's - long and high into our tall forwards. This is so different to how the Hawks approach it. They do use the long option at times but their ability to hit players on the lead, kick to space or isolate players in one-on-one contests is excellent. We butchered a few of the chances we did have to hit up short targets (Lynch twice) but usually relied on the long bomb (often to Betts). It just seems we are so one dimensional and predictable.

I noticed on several occasions that when a mark was taken at that awkward ~55m out location their whole forward line pushed into a deep bundle on top of the goal square, taking all our defenders with them, before all doing a sharp u-turn and leading out in all directions into the huge pocket of space they'd created. I've never seen that before on a footy field anyway, much better than our "zone off in your own attacking 50" strategy.

ultimately though they won the game because they pressured us relentlessly the entire game. We seemed to have an edge at getting first hands on the footy, but got choked out of using it effectively and as soon as they got the ball back the guy with it gets options running past and options on the lead available immediately and he knows exactly we're they're going to be.

incredibly well-drilled footy side, its no wonder the so-called box hill can turn up and still have an impact in the game. Our "win the contested ball and kick deep entries into the forward 50" gameplan is pre-school level compared to the Hawks structures and running patterns. Clarko has had years to drill it of course... hard not to like the Hawks to be honest, provided you're not playing them.

 

[Elite Crow]

One of the footy shows last week highlighted how the Hawks played differently against North, they did what we do, long bomb straight to the defenders, which was Thompson.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

The other thing I noticed was that they have fewer players around the stoppages than most teams. At times they are prepared to keep all their forwards and defenders out of there. Rather than those massive clusters of 24 players around a stoppage they leave space for the likes of Mitchell to work their magic - plenty of room to move, hard for us to put pressure on.

 

[BunjiMac]

The hawks play like an elite SAS team that is extremely well organised, cold blooded, accurate and efficient. Their moves are quick and incisive and expel minimal energy.

We seem to want to hunt like a pack of ravenous dogs. Which is great in one way as we do win alot of the ball, however it requires alot of energy. This pack mentality also means that the players are often very close together so when they win the ball, they struggle for options in moving the ball forward. We often end up seeing a chain of handballs to players who are literally standing 2m away, until hopefully a runner from the back comes by who can receive it. Otherwise we tend to just click blindly.

Hawthorn don't crowd the contest, but instead have people setting up 10m or so from the contest. When they win the ball, by about the second hand pass they have cleared the contest and are in a break away situation which involved hitting a runner, forward of the contest, as opposed to how we rely on a runner coming from the back. The next play that follows is usually a low kick that slices through the defence and hits someone on a lead at CHF.

I'm not sure if we run this Game Plan because of our skills are poor or whether the poor execution of skills is a result of the game plan. Either way, our skills are close to the worst in the league.

 

[spenze]

great write up, kinda wish I had a chance to watch the match

 

[Tex200]

Mentioned these things in other threads but anyway;

I liked a lot of what we did last night.

I was very annoyed no one was accountable for Birchall until after half time.

The over use of handball / poor decision making at critical times cost us.

 

[Hank93]

The other thing I noticed was that they have fewer players around the stoppages than most teams. At times they are prepared to keep all their forwards and defenders out of there. Rather than those massive clusters of 24 players around a stoppage they leave space for the likes of Mitchell to work their magic - plenty of room to move, hard for us to put pressure on.

And leave a few players just outside the contest to receive the quick handball and either get a clean kick away or run into the clear in space.

We seem to win contested ball but then it's generally a rushed handball to no one.

EDIT: BunjiMac seems to have mentioned this. Still, it was clear there clearances were way more effective than ours.

 

[Tex200]

And leave a few players just outside the contest to receive the quick handball and either get a clean kick away or run into the clear in space.

We seem to win contested ball but then it's generally a rushed handball to no one.

EDIT: BunjiMac seems to have mentioned this. Still, it was clear there clearances were way more effective than ours.

This - happened time and again.

 

[Schulzycrow]

It was the missed handball, the poor kick, the wrong decision taken, the goals in the last that had to be kicked that weren't. We did a lot right, but really if the Hawks had kicked the easy ones they muffed it would have been 30 to 40 points not 12.

Also selections, matchups and our non ability to have a plan B or C for kicking out from behinds meant we won't get far even if we do make the 8. We are so far behind the top 4 it isn't funny.

Our work around the contests and the lack of any real structure is a coaching thing and has been happening for a couple of seasons. Either dumb coaches or dumb player.

 

[BigLefty]

The hawks play like an elite SAS team that is extremely well organised, cold blooded, accurate and efficient. Their moves are quick and incisive and expel minimal energy.

We seem to want to hunt like a pack of ravenous dogs. Which is great in one way as we do win alot of the ball, however it requires alot of energy. This pack mentality also means that the players are often very close together so when they win the ball, they struggle for options in moving the ball forward. We often end up seeing a chain of handballs to players who are literally standing 2m away, until hopefully a runner from the back comes by who can receive it. Otherwise we tend to just click blindly.

Hawthorn don't crowd the contest, but instead have people setting up 10m or so from the contest. When they win the ball, by about the second hand pass they have cleared the contest and are in a break away situation which involved hitting a runner, forward of the contest, as opposed to how we rely on a runner coming from the back. The next play that follows is usually a low kick that slices through the defence and hits someone on a lead at CHF.

I'm not sure if we run this Game Plan because of our skills are poor or whether the poor execution of skills is a result of the game plan. Either way, our skills are close to the worst in the league.

well we did have this guy address the side during the week....

 

[Bailey01]

Good write up
But one fact you got wrong
Brad Crouch averages 24.7 disposals in his career not 23.9


The more you know

 

[huludicidal]

If you're going to make Laird a choice on the '5 best players' list, I don't really see how you can leave off any of the other 20 players (obviously Porplyzia doesn't deserve a mention). Laird was absolutely putrid and will be dropped.

 

[Bailey01]

If you're going to make Laird a choice on the '5 best players' list, I don't really see how you can leave off any of the other 20 players (obviously Porplyzia doesn't deserve a mention). Laird was absolutely putrid and will be dropped.

Dropped for who? They are playing him out of position so you can't expect him to be outstanding. He was awesome last year as a small defender but then the coaches had to **** up a formula that was working. Jaensch if anything should be dropped for his poor defensive efforts and skill errors.

 

[BobaFett]

Thoughts on some players from the game:

Dangerfield: Was everywhere, equalled the highest contested possessions for one individual in a game. Didn't seem to get tagged at all, just went head to head with lewis. Had a few bad skill errors, and needs to fix up his kicking for goal, but is a beast.

Sloane: Gave everything, broke the 30 touches mark, and had 7 tackles. A couple of crucial and courageous marks going back with the flight. Needs to work on his kicking though, very average kick.

Brodie Smith: If he isn't in the AA team, it will be a disgrace. The guy is a jet, and the quicker we get him in the midfield the better. He can't defend, so playing him on a wing, and having someone in defence who is better at stopping players will be good for the team. Hendo can take over his role down back

Crouch: How many players with less than 30 games have had a 40 possession game? Brad Crouch. Needs to work in his kicking as well, has the tendency to just kick it in the air and make it someone else's problem, but will be an absolute gun. He adds a bit of class and time to our midfield, considering sloane and danger are full steam ahead players. I can't decide if he is fast, or just takes twice the amount of steps as other players, either way, lock him down for ten years.

Douglas: What is wrong with this guy? Last year was running and carrying, and was even getting tagged towards the end of 2013. Looks like he has no confidence, he should be loving life, he is now our 5th best midfielder. Hopefully he is saving himself for collingwood

Pods: Played a great first half, then went absolutely missing when the heat was on, which was disappointing. He did played well for the first time this year in terms of playing on a player down back. He played on their resting ruckmen and beat them in the 4th quarter. Collingwood play witts up forward, so it would be good to see Rutten dropped, and pods play back.

Lynch: Had a few bad disposals, seems to always go for the impossible kick that is a 10% chance at the best of times. Needs to relax a bit when he has the ball, wants to do everything at 110%. Played on Birchall after half time, and kept him to 5 touches (20 first half), kicked 2 goals as well. If things went his way, could of kicked 4, Birchall didn't want to run off him at all. Is probably suffering a bit from Pods being played, there isn't enough space for him to use his engine and take marks. Remember its his 3rd game back after 3 injuries, will take time along with hendo and crouch. Dominated last year against collingwood, looking forward to a repeat of that.

Jenkins: Offensively awesome, has turned his goal kicking accuracy right around, and is a real threat. If he keeps taking marks like he did on Friday, pods won't be needed. His kick from 50 was a huge point in the game, and i thought we would win from there , we didn't. Needs to work on his defensive game, because there is nothing of it at the moment. Would like to see him throw his weight around a bit also, never seems to do a big tackle or break a pack. He is bigger than everyone else, he should be smashing into them.

Walker: Under rated performance from tex. Has a bad game, but still manages to kick 2, as good forwards do. Still think he isn't being used much because pods is easier to see, would like to see pods moved to defence, or dropped, so we can see tex, jenkins and lynch strut their stuff. Needs to lose a few Kilos to get back to his best, but i expect a big one from him against the pies. Plays well on the MCG usually!

Jaensch/Brown/Laird: Solid citizens, didn't play badly, but didn't do anything that well either. I think theres only 2 spots in the team for these 3 players, and the coaches thought it would be Brown and Laird, but Jaensch has done surprisingly well, and provides more attack than the other two. Laird seems to be the odd one out, and is getting moved to the midfield. I don't think laird is good enough or big enough to play midfield, so not sure what the coaches are doing. Maybe Laird makes way for grigg or M Crouch

Henderson: Played a bad night, couldn't hit water if he fell out of a boat on Friday. Is vital to our back six, and provides great run along with jaensch and Smith, but he needs to be more confident. No one will catch him, so he should take the game on more, and attack space like sloane and lynch. He is one of our few 100 metre players. He is also crucial to getting Smith into the midfield.

Scott Thompson: Had a great first half stat wise, but didn't seem to be moving all that well. Why the hell was this guy played if he was at risk of more injury, M crouch should have been given the game if he wasn't right. Hopefully it isn't a bad injury, and he is up and going for the game in two weeks, we need him against the big bodied collingwood midfield.

Eddie Betts: Worst on ground. Its harsh, but eddie played a bad one, got out bodied and out run by litherland most of the night. Was bound to have a bad game though, had been tearing teams apart for the last month. Hopefully finds his form against the pies, will likely take Marley william apart

Rutten: If thompson didn't go down, he would of been Subbed. He shouldnt be getting a game just because he is a club great. He is so slow, has no agility, and is getting beaten by even the resting ruckmen now, which used to be his reason for getting a game. He went forward in the last, and basically just got in the way of walker, lynch and Jenkins. Would of been more useful if he was benched for the last. Needs to be dropped, will be a huge liability in finals if we make it anyway

Talia: Just the usual Talia. Was great all night at stopping Roughead, is probably the best defensive Backmen in the game this year. However he needs to find the pill a bit more, seems to lack confidence when he does find it, which is due to his terrible disposal. He should be given the responsibility of leading the backline, he has enough experience now to not need rutten there as the token old guy.

Martin: Saw the good martin, and the bad martin. He tries reasonably hard, did a few courageous acts and a few bad moments, but I'm not sure we are really getting anywhere by playing him. Him and wright seem to be similar players, good at being the 6th or 7th midfielder, and the resting midfielder in the forward line. Not sure we can play both moving forward though.

Otten: Had a terrible night, he probably wouldn't have slept friday night. Gunston took him to the cleaners in the first quarter, and he could of kicked 3 more after quarter time if he didn't make stupid mistakes, like dropping the ball in the goal square. Otten made a terrible play on the wing at one stage, it was horrendous. We switched the ball, lynch and jenkins had burnt off their opponents upfield, and Otten amazingly doesn't kick it to them, instead looks inboard, then looks to the boundary, and somehow handballs it into a hawthorn player and then falls over. He looks so heavy and slow, not sure thats a good thing for a third tall defender, the good teams have a third tall defender who is agile and can run. Worst game for the club, but we should forgive him, everyone can have a bad game! Hopefully he moves on quickly and the coaches back him in against collingwood

 

[DD#23]

Pods: Played a great first half, then went absolutely missing when the heat was on, which was disappointing. He did played well for the first time this year in terms of playing on a player down back. He played on their resting ruckmen and beat them in the 4th quarter. Collingwood play witts up forward, so it would be good to see Rutten dropped, and pods play back.

in his defence he appeared to get swapped with Rutten pretty early on in the second half, in what I can only assume was Sando looking to try and get Rutten in the game. Unfortunately Rutten offered nothing at FF and made the guy who was one of our best avenues forward largely ineffective floating around down back. This obviously all came about because it was a very poor choice to select Rutten against the Hawks attack, "horses for courses" my arse.

 

[Hank93]

Good write up
But one fact you got wrong
Brad Crouch averages 24.7 disposals in his career not 23.9


The more you know

Stats must have not updated on footywire when I checked.

 

[King Elvis]

One of the footy shows last week highlighted how the Hawks played differently against North, they did what we do, long bomb straight to the defenders, which was Thompson.

And you can bet Clarkson tore strips off of them as a result - and they responded by going back to their structures and disciplines and touched us up missing half of their team.

We are a poorly structured team, with an ineffective gameplan. We are poorly coached. Nothing had changed in 18 months.

 

[skoobydoo]

Watching the replay Channel 7 had Tom Harley parked up inside our coaching box. He made mention a couple of times that our coaches wanted more 'deep' inside 50's - long and high into our tall forwards. This is so different to how the Hawks approach it. They do use the long option at times but their ability to hit players on the lead, kick to space or isolate players in one-on-one contests is excellent. We butchered a few of the chances we did have to hit up short targets (Lynch twice) but usually relied on the long bomb (often to Betts). It just seems we are so one dimensional and predictable.

I wonder as well if the fact that our game plan only needs us to hoof the ball in high and long means that players like Grigg aren't valued as much? And when we draft players, footskills may not be at the top of the list of desirable traits. We don't need players with good footskills to bomb it to the hot spot.

As a result of this game style, our forwards don't lead nearly enough. Betts used to lead all the time and was quite effective playing as a pseudo tall out of the goal square for Carlton. Walker was excellent on the lead early in his career. Now our forwards get under the footy and almost try to work backwards as the high kick comes in. We don't lead up at the ball carrier, or create space for each other.


Their hands around contests are superb. Crouch aside, their ability to take the ball cleanly in traffic, absorb, dodge or evade the pressure we applied and to find a team mate by hand is in another stratosphere compared to ours. So many of our stoppage 'wins' involved a rushed kick forward under pressure. And when we did use a few handballs we were usually forced way out wide whereas they were so creative and opened us up through the middle. Our raw stoppage numbers this season are quite good but it doesn't seem as though we are really controlling the footy and causing the damage we could be.

Like, plus.

 

[skoobydoo]

I noticed on several occasions that when a mark was taken at that awkward ~55m out location their whole forward line pushed into a deep bundle on top of the goal square, taking all our defenders with them, before all doing a sharp u-turn and leading out in all directions into the huge pocket of space they'd created. I've never seen that before on a footy field anyway, much better than our "zone off in your own attacking 50" strategy.

ultimately though they won the game because they pressured us relentlessly the entire game. We seemed to have an edge at getting first hands on the footy, but got choked out of using it effectively and as soon as they got the ball back the guy with it gets options running past and options on the lead available immediately and he knows exactly we're they're going to be.

incredibly well-drilled footy side, its no wonder the so-called box hill can turn up and still have an impact in the game. Our "win the contested ball and kick deep entries into the forward 50" gameplan is pre-school level compared to the Hawks structures and running patterns. Clarko has had years to drill it of course... hard not to like the Hawks to be honest, provided you're not playing them.

Like, plus.

 

[JohnK]

Excellent photograph, Hank. It shows the sheer insanity of the modern game with seventeen players hovering around a bouncing ball. Unbelievable. That's nearly half of the players on the field in one tiny patch. That's worse than mini-league.

 

[Hank93]

Excellent photograph, Hank. It shows the sheer insanity of the modern game with seventeen players hovering around a bouncing ball. Unbelievable. That's nearly half of the players on the field in one tiny patch. That's worse than mini-league.

That wasn't even the intention of the photo, just wanted to get some close up action shots.

But yeah, that one image encapsulates the modern game. So much congestion.