Oppo Camp Non-Essendon Football Thread XVII

Remove this Banner Ad

Ken Hinkley is so cringe. Crying after beating St.Kilda by 2 points. :tearsofjoy:
 
ant555 said:
Points against is not always a reflection of how you are defending.
Saturday we gave up 11 goals from turnover. You can not defend that .
We have consistently given up 8 plus goals via turnovers. That is not a defensive issue. That is a skill issue.
We have our defensive issues for sure but I have been to 5 Hawks games across the season and they are winning more from speed in the back half and players coming out of the back half kicking at 80% plus efficiency. Then you have their midfield group who win the football at ground level better than anyone else so they don’t lose a lot of contests.
Click to expand...
It is a pretty simplistic view I know, but I am struggling with the idea that points against is not a good way to tell how well your team is defending, I really am. lol.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

ant555 said:
Hawks have a weapon we do not have . Speed in the back half to break the defensive zone .
Hard to shut it down when both back pockets and both half back flanks can run with the footy at speed and then throw in two intercept players who kick at 80% plus efficiency.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know. I've been saying we need run and carry from the back all season.
 
DERO said:
It is a pretty simplistic view I know, but I am struggling with the idea that points against is not a good way to tell how well your team is defending, I really am. lol.
Click to expand...
I know. Sounds strange but I when you break down all the scoring stats you can find an area like score from turnover which is almost impossible to defend so it is not a defensive issue.
If you are giving up 60 plus points most weeks because of turnover then the issue is more than just bad defence. 🙂
 
Hawthorn haven't passed us yet but it's like the world record line catching the tiring swimmer, it looks inevitable.

I was thinking they'd touch and turn ahead for round 1 2025 but all indications are that it will happen sooner. We're converging in a similar place but when I look at them I see a list being custom built for a specific style of play, the list implementing at least the foundation of that style of play (do not lose sight that this is not a discussion about whether Hawthorn is 'in contention') and the scope for an almost linear progression. I expect the progression to be linear mainly because they have their style of play, it's one that is proven in the heat of battle (by sides like Collingwood and Sydney), and also because key parts of the list will mature, they will not lose anyone of significance due to age and they'll be attractive enough to sign free agents like McKay who they missed last season. Contrast this with Adelaide of last season which was a list built for 15 years ago heavily reliant on aging stars. That their internal expectations were high simply exposes the cluelessness of the people running that club.

When I look at us I see a patchwork, the result of the 'take the talent' mentality with no real idea of how it all fits together, with no real identity and which is trying to implement different ideas to allow for the our traditional rebuild on the run. I don't mind a rebuild on the run, Hawthorn is doing it as is Geelong, but it gets into trouble when there is no clear picture of the way forward. It's why you end up doing it for the 3rd or 4th time in 10 years.

I do not think our issue is as much that we have x number of players who we need to replace, even though we play 6 to 8 players who are not really capable of performing a useful structural function, it's more that I do not know how we expect to be playing when we are good. It's the system that allows these players to play. Take the transition for example, we haven't really addressed it by increasing the capacity for front half defence. We're basically just loading up at D50 which is most of what we have been doing since 2017 to stem the bleeding. Is that what we want to be doing when we are good? If so, it doesn't require much evolution which means that we are likely limited to natural improvement of the current group. Coaches build the confidence of players by selling them on systems and then can't or won't change.

The only thing that gives me cause for doubt re Hawthorn is the general weakness of their key position stocks. I really like Calsher Dear but he's a kid. Lewis' body is James Stewart-level unreliable. Gunston is fodder these days and while Chol is effective he's not going to take a game from you in much the same what that Wright lacks that physical edge to his game. Their key defenders look gettable on paper. Frost has a mere in him and Sicily can't be relied on to defend guys who have 4 to 5 inches on him. Scrimshaw is now as much Ben Stratton as '(hopefully) Grant Birchall' but I'm not pinning my hopes on him. But then key position players are probably overrated, anyway, at least in the sense that a team can be really good without a glut of quality talls. Collingwood and Melbourne are 2 of the last 3 premiers and have a collective 2 elite key position players between them (i.e. May and Moore). The rest are B grade fodder at best.

I find it such a fascinating build which is why I am rooting for it. Don't get distracted by the reputation of the list based on the draft. From day 1 there has been such a clear vision for what they are trying to do and recruiting of players who are best suited to that vision. The focus of their game is turnovers, high intensity running and foot skills and they've built a team with those characteristics around the hard-ball pigs they have in the middle.

It looks like Mitchell and co are just putting together another, more high intensity version of the most recent dynasty era. As is usually the case the apple does not fall far from the tree. They're not going to be a team of clearances beasts.

Carefully targeted recruiting is probably best exemplified by the recruitment of D'Ambrosio. They didn't just take the punt on him they trusted him in the key role as a defensive playmaker. I can't think of many times a guy what that pedigree (i.e. a MSD recruit / rookie with only handful of senior games to his name) was trusted with that level of responsibility. A highly skilful left footed defensive playmaker with as many flaws in his game as strengths is about the most Hawthorn thing ever.

I think it is also easiest to see in McKenzie and Weddell. It is a bit harder to see it in Ward who has struggled to make his mark to date. McKenzie was probably the least sexy of the options in the top 15 in 2022 but he is so quintessentially a modern-dynasty-era-Hawthorn player. He has great endurance, he's very smart (with positioning and reading of the game) and is great by foot. But he's not going to be a clearance beast as he doesn't have that capacity. They also put their collective balls on the line, investing heavily in Weddell, more than many thought sensible at the time. But if you're putting the pieces together for Hawthorn, there is hardly anything more important than a 192cm general defender with his physicality, running power and counterattacking instincts. He's like a high octane combination of Stratton and Birchall.

I do not agree with everything, I still find their selection of Watson bizarre but I think it also highlights a singular focus on the requirements for their system.

They've got some decent depth developing off Broadway, too. Serong, Ward, Husthwaite and Ramseden have become very good VFL level players. Butler was kicking a lot of goals before he broke his leg. Scaife looks to have some tricks as a key forward. Lewis is always going to be at least that tease. It's a work in progress. I think they're probably 2 off-seasons of FA recruiting and development from being a genuine challenger.

And just briefly, ball retention is a form of defence. I don't think you can say Essendon defends well but turnovers happen. They keep happening and Essendon bleeds scores as a result. Perhaps Essendon would not bleed scores if the turnovers were not coming out of defensive 50. We are trying to turn the ball over in the same space of the ground that most of our opponents are. It's a bit of a recipe for disaster. In soccer, the Spanish have blown the Italians out of the water philosophically, protecting a defence from the barrage that happens when a team allows its opposition to get close enough to its goal.
 
Last edited:
raskolnikov said:
Ken Hinkley is so cringe. Crying after beating St.Kilda by 2 points. :tearsofjoy:
Click to expand...
Didn’t Goddard cry when we beat them? Must be a St Kilda thing
 
Nicholas61 said:
Our current forward line symbolic of that. The ruck setup we had in the wet on the weekend another example.
Click to expand...


Very much so.

I wouldn't be playing a key forward with Wright's mobility along with 2 rucks. Why do we play those rucks, by the way? Because most of our clearance quality comes from ruck dominance. But it doesn't even end there because the problem is compounded by playing 3 more 'talls' forward in Stringer, Langford and Jones (Jones may be uniquely good as a pressure player at that size but it's nowhere near enough). When it's left to Guelfi, Gresham and Menzie to apply pressure, the reason we are so bad at playing front half footy should be very obvious. Guelfi and Gresham can get 15 to 20 possessions all they want but they serve no useful structural function. That they get possessions and score goals is incidental to their being forward in position (certainly for Guelfi, Gresham is capable of creating a little).

This is a big part of the reason I said that I don't have any feel for what we want to be. We are playing a system to compensate for pretty much everything I have just named and no aspect of it is elite.

We're even feeling the pinch with Martin who should probably be freewheeling from half forward but the only place we can really absorb his defensive frailty at the moment is half back.

The stat sheet will tell you everything is okay but the stat sheet doesn't tell you the point at which you hit diminishing returns for the inclusion of too many players of sub-par mobility and defensive / 2-way capacity. This is where the cheating rears its ugly head. How much of what we do that is good genuinely withstands scrutiny? 4 to 5 weeks ago you could hang you hat on that win against GWS. GWS has fallen off a cliff since then. That's not the be all and end all except that the 3 times we have been tested in the last month we've failed (and twice it was not even close).
 
www.afl.com.au

The move that has Hawks in position to land in-demand stars

Hawthorn's pivot last year has it better placed as it targets in-demand players in 2024, writes Cal Twomey
www.afl.com.au www.afl.com.au

Stoked to see that the one thing that is actually moneyball isn’t actually moneyball and everything that isn’t actually moneyball is still very much moneyball.
 
BrunoV said:
Hawthorn haven't passed us yet but it's like the world record line catching the tiring swimmer, it looks inevitable.

I was thinking they'd touch and turn ahead for round 1 2025 but all indications are that it will happen sooner. We're converging in a similar place but when I look at them I see a list being custom built for a specific style of play, the list implementing at least the foundation of that style of play (do not lose sight that this is not a discussion about whether Hawthorn is 'in contention') and the scope for an almost linear progression. I expect the progression to be linear mainly because they have their style of play, it's one that is proven in the heat of battle (by sides like Collingwood and Sydney), and also because key parts of the list will mature, they will not lose anyone of significance due to age and they'll be attractive enough to sign free agents like McKay who they missed last season. Contrast this with Adelaide of last season which was a list built for 15 years ago heavily reliant on aging stars. That their internal expectations were high simply exposes the cluelessness of the people running that club.

When I look at us I see a patchwork, the result of the 'take the talent' mentality with no real idea of how it all fits together, with no real identity and which is trying to implement different ideas to allow for the our traditional rebuild on the run. I don't mind a rebuild on the run, Hawthorn is doing it as is Geelong, but it gets into trouble when there is no clear picture of the way forward. It's why you end up doing it for the 3rd or 4th time in 10 years.

I do not think our issue is as much that we have x number of players who we need to replace, even though we play 6 to 8 players who are not really capable of performing a useful structural function, it's more that I do not know how we expect to be playing when we are good. It's the system that allows these players to play. Take the transition for example, we haven't really addressed it by increasing the capacity for front half defence. We're basically just loading up at D50 which is most of what we have been doing since 2017 to stem the bleeding. Is that what we want to be doing when we are good? If so, it doesn't require much evolution which means that we are likely limited to natural improvement of the current group. Coaches build the confidence of players by selling them on systems and then can't or won't change.

The only thing that gives me cause for doubt re Hawthorn is the general weakness of their key position stocks. I really like Calsher Dear but he's a kid. Lewis' body is James Stewart-level unreliable. Gunston is fodder these days and while Chol is effective he's not going to take a game from you in much the same what that Wright lacks that physical edge to his game. Their key defenders look gettable on paper. Frost has a mere in him and Sicily can't be relied on to defend guys who have 4 to 5 inches on him. Scrimshaw is now as much Ben Stratton as '(hopefully) Grant Birchall' but I'm not pinning my hopes on him. But then key position players are probably overrated, anyway, at least in the sense that a team can be really good without a glut of quality talls. Collingwood and Melbourne are 2 of the last 3 premiers and have a collective 2 elite key position players between them (i.e. May and Moore). The rest are B grade fodder at best.

I find it such a fascinating build which is why I am rooting for it. Don't get distracted by the reputation of the list based on the draft. From day 1 there has been such a clear vision for what they are trying to do and recruiting of players who are best suited to that vision. The focus of their game is turnovers, high intensity running and foot skills and they've built a team with those characteristics around the hard-ball pigs they have in the middle.

It looks like Mitchell and co are just putting together another, more high intensity version of the most recent dynasty era. As is usually the case the apple does not fall far from the tree. They're not going to be a team of clearances beasts.

Carefully targeted recruiting is probably best exemplified by the recruitment of D'Ambrosio. They didn't just take the punt on him they trusted him in the key role as a defensive playmaker. I can't think of many times a guy what that pedigree (i.e. a MSD recruit / rookie with only handful of senior games to his name) was trusted with that level of responsibility. A highly skilful left footed defensive playmaker with as many flaws in his game as strengths is about the most Hawthorn thing ever.

I think it is also easiest to see in McKenzie and Weddell. It is a bit harder to see it in Ward who has struggled to make his mark to date. McKenzie was probably the least sexy of the options in the top 15 in 2022 but he is so quintessentially a modern-dynasty-era-Hawthorn player. He has great endurance, he's very smart (with positioning and reading of the game) and is great by foot. But he's not going to be a clearance beast as he doesn't have that capacity. They also put their collective balls on the line, investing heavily in Weddell, more than many thought sensible at the time. But if you're putting the pieces together for Hawthorn, there is hardly anything more important than a 192cm general defender with his physicality, running power and counterattacking instincts. He's like a high octane combination of Stratton and Birchall.

I do not agree with everything, I still find their selection of Watson bizarre but I think it also highlights a singular focus on the requirements for their system.

They've got some decent depth developing off Broadway, too. Serong, Ward, Husthwaite and Ramseden have become very good VFL level players. Butler was kicking a lot of goals before he broke his leg. Scaife looks to have some tricks as a key forward. Lewis is always going to be at least that tease. It's a work in progress. I think they're probably 2 off-seasons of FA recruiting and development from being a genuine challenger.

And just briefly, ball retention is a form of defence. I don't think you can say Essendon defends well but turnovers happen. They keep happening and Essendon bleeds scores as a result. Perhaps Essendon would not bleed scores if the turnovers were not coming out of defensive 50. We are trying to turn the ball over in the same space of the ground that most of our opponents are. It's a bit of a recipe for disaster. In soccer, the Spanish have blown the Italians out of the water philosophically, protecting a defence from the barrage that happens when a team allows its opposition to get close enough to its goal.
Click to expand...
If you like Hawthorn so much why don't you marry them.
 
DERO said:
If you like Hawthorn so much why don't you marry them.
Click to expand...

I married one of them.

Season 6 What GIF by The Office
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Phone said:
Oooooooo we've got a very rare forceful front-on contact ban! this will get tongues talking

www.afl.com.au

MATCH REVIEW: Blues defender banned for front-on contact

The Match Review findings for Sunday's round 16 games are in
www.afl.com.au www.afl.com.au
Click to expand...
I think this one is absolute bullshit. Mansell bent down to get the ball, started to come up, saw Boyd coming, and he ducked straight back down. Boyd would've been expecting to tackle a bloke who was more or less upright. It also looks like Boyd tried to pull up the moment Mansell ducked but by that point the impact was unavoidable.

That said, **** Carlton!
 
Agronomus said:
So which one of our guys did Finlayson call a ******? No players in the AFL are gay so how is that an insult?
Click to expand...
Not sure if this is a serious post but I'll bite. What makes you think there are no gay men in the afl?
 
Agronomus said:
So which one of our guys did Finlayson call a ******? No players in the AFL are gay so how is that an insult?
Click to expand...


There is something about the Finlayson scenario that has always amused me. It's usually the case with these social issues where the motivation in response is virtue signalling and paternalism.

It's not an insult to someone who is not gay unless, of course, you are making a qualitative assessment of that person's superficial masculinity / gayness.

If it was said to Goldstein we would know it is Goldstein. But we're not allowed to know because the meat heads at the AFL are concerned that it looks like there is some truth to it. To be concerned that there is some truth to it you've made the bigoted assessment you're so judgmental of.

After all of that even if you not gay you are gay now because Jeremy Finlayson thinks you're gay.

In the immortal words of Seinfeld 'I've been outed and I wasn't even in'.
 
Agronomus said:
So which one of our guys did Finlayson call a ******? No players in the AFL are gay so how is that an insult?
Click to expand...
I think someone would find it more upsetting if they were in the closet.
 
Like that the AFL has come out and said the umpiring is as good as it's ever been.
If been beyond shit for 20 years so let's reward mediocrity. The umpiring is atrocious. Its not ok. People pay money to fund the AFL and they serve up this shit.
All people really want is consistent umpiring and that is the main downfall of the AFL they just can't do it. There is so much bias towards teams by umpires-they need to stamp this shit out.
I've started to watch league because most of the time the umpires don't ruin a game
 
BrunoV said:
There is something about the Finlayson scenario that has always amused me. It's usually the case with these social issues where the motivation in response is virtue signalling and paternalism.

It's not an insult to someone who is not gay unless, of course, you are making a qualitative assessment of that person's superficial masculinity / gayness.

If it was said to Goldstein we would know it is Goldstein. But we're not allowed to know because the meat heads at the AFL are concerned that it looks like there is some truth to it. To be concerned that there is some truth to it you've made the bigoted assessment you're so judgmental of.

After all of that even if you not gay you are gay now because Jeremy Finlayson thinks you're gay.

In the immortal words of Seinfeld 'I've been outed and I wasn't even in'.
Click to expand...
I could be wrong but the issue with what he said is probably not so much about accusations that a player is gay, and more because he’s chosen to use sexual orientation as an insult.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

yaco55
  • Locked
MVP Essendon v The West Coast
2 3
Replies
50
Views
837
Duckworth
Duckworth
ant555
VFL Essendon v Southport
2 3
Replies
50
Views
2K
BrunoV
BrunoV
yaco55
  • Locked
MVP Round 13. Essendon vs Carlton
Replies
24
Views
472
eth-dog
eth-dog
ant555
VFL Footscray v Essendon
2 3 4
Replies
97
Views
3K
faible
faible
ghostdog
Oppo Camp Non-Essendon AFLW Thread
2 3 4 5
Replies
118
Views
7K
Lore
Lore
yaco55
  • Locked
MVP Round 11. Richmond VS Essendon
2
Replies
36
Views
694
Nifft
Nifft
Nuggs Bunny
  • Locked
MVP Round 10 . Essendon vs Kangaroos
2
Replies
30
Views
863
ant555
ant555

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top