Autopsy Round 1, 2024: Hawks fail against Bombers

[DogDaySonny]

Yeah I'm not really sure about the optimism out of this game. We were never a chance. I think the players knew it as well.

You could feel the steam leave our guys about five minutes into the fourth when they realised they had blown their opportunity to win. Up until the point they had done everything needed to win but kick straight for goals. But like with kicking for goal, when Essendon finally had the chance to shut the door, they capitalised on it.

From our perspective, this was a game of missed opportunities. From theirs, a game of taking their far more limited opportunities and the match as a result.

We are going to kick straight and we are going to demolish some sides this year. This team is solid. They play a good game style. And the middle of the ladder must be wary.

 

[ahhhhhh]

You could feel the steam leave our guys about five minutes into the fourth when they realised they had blown their opportunity to win. Up until the point they had done everything needed to win but kick straight for goals. But like with kicking for goal, when Essendon finally had the chance to shut the door, they capitalised on it.

From our perspective, this was a game of missed opportunities. From theirs, a game of taking their far more limited opportunities and the match as a result.

We are going to kick straight and we are going to demolish some sides this year. This team is solid. They play a good game style. And the middle of the ladder must be wary.

I think the ease with which they were walking it out of the middle every time we kicked a goal is a major concern. We won't beat anyone except West Coast if that continues. It could get very ugly if they apply the same pressure in the middle this week.

 

[Tony3163]

Yeah I'm not really sure about the optimism out of this game. We were never a chance. I think the players knew it as well.

 

[Davo-27]

View attachment 1933420

It’s a mistaken belief to think they got goal kicks all centered and our attempts were way out wide. They made theirs, we didn’t. In fact, you can see they made them from wider and further than we did.

This game’s analysis is simple. We missed our shots when we had them. They made theirs. We did enough to win everywhere on the ground except for kicking for goal. Despite all the stats everywhere else that we would like to see improvement in, the one that cost us was kicking accuracy in front of goals.

Ok ignore all the Hawks blue circles and look at the little grey dots, all outside of the goal and behind corridor, whereas a much larger percent of Essendons shots in total are from that corridor, just open your eyes... Essendon had 9/22 shots outside of the corridor, we had 14+/28 (easier to kick goals from straight in front than the boundary, good defence from mids and defence structures force you to go wide, whereas bad mid defence and structures allow for corridor easier shots, how is this hard to understand?

 

[SSSSSS]

View attachment 1933420

It’s a mistaken belief to think they got goal kicks all centered and our attempts were way out wide. They made theirs, we didn’t. In fact, you can see they made them from wider and further than we did.

This game’s analysis is simple. We missed our shots when we had them. They made theirs. We did enough to win everywhere on the ground except for kicking for goal. Despite all the stats everywhere else that we would like to see improvement in, the one that cost us was kicking accuracy in front of goals.

6 goals from 50+ out. Ridiculous.

Most games you're lucky to see maybe 2 or 3 split between two teams.

 

[CHUBBSS]

View attachment 1933420

It’s a mistaken belief to think they got goal kicks all centered and our attempts were way out wide. They made theirs, we didn’t. In fact, you can see they made them from wider and further than we did.

This game’s analysis is simple. We missed our shots when we had them. They made theirs. We did enough to win everywhere on the ground except for kicking for goal. Despite all the stats everywhere else that we would like to see improvement in, the one that cost us was kicking accuracy in front of goals.

Good kicking is good football and it always will be, still not sure what we have done in this department since rath left

 

[DogDaySonny]

Ok ignore all the Hawks blue circles and look at the little grey dots, all outside of the goal and behind corridor, whereas a much larger percent of Essendons shots in total are from that corridor, just open your eyes... Essendon had 9/22 shots outside of the corridor, we had 14+/28 (easier to kick goals from straight in front than the boundary, good defence from mids and defence structures force you to go wide, whereas bad mid defence and structures allow for corridor easier shots, how is this hard to understand?

Look at the Essendon shots from out wide, both in pockets and from the 50. They made shots from the angles we missed. Without those goals, they lose. Look at Essendon's little grey dots. There are hardly any. And just one little grey dot out wide from well beyond the 50 for the Bombers. They hit all their tough shots. Their missed shots were mostly the easy ones (which we also missed).


I'm not saying that we don't have a lot of room and opportunity to improve elsewhere on the field. In fact, we must if we want to play (and win, even) finals football. BUT IN THIS GAME against THIS TEAM (mid-table that they are), we did everything we needed to do to win but kick straight at goals. Essendon did not put themselves in a position to win EXCEPT for kicking 12.3 to three-quarter time (a virtually unseen 80% accuracy to that point of a game).

That was THIS game's deciding factor.

 

[DogDaySonny]

6 goals from 50+ out. Ridiculous.

Most games you're lucky to see maybe 2 or 3 split between two teams.

Exactly. Essendon hit home when it counted. If they played to normal for the AFL, they would have lost this game despite our wastage in front of goals. But they didn't. They kicked like their lives depended on it and that gave them the opportunity to win this game when we defended better (49% inside efficiency for us to 41% for them, and they were around 35% at three-quarter time) and midfielded better (despite our centre bounce shortcomings, we beat them on I50's 57 to 51). We, unbelievably, even controlled the ball better up forward than they did, out marking them inside 50 nineteen to fourteen.

We scored on half our entries, marked more inside 50 and generated more i50 opportunities? But still, lost? How is that possible? 39% goal-kicking accuracy to 77%. And they hit from every angle and every distance we missed.


This is not a disaster. This is a well-structured side. And they will beat some very solid teams when the kicking accuracy kicks in. We don't have to kick 77% for goal to win games. Just 55% accuracy will do us very well. 60% and we'll be ablaze.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Yeh the accuracy thing was amazing.

A few things:
1. We missed about 5 shots from the right pocket in the first quarter. Enough to make me wonder if there was wind or something making that spot particularly difficult. Note Essendon only had one shot from that part of the ground.

2. Essendon's accuracy was boosted by the shots they had from 10-30m out. They got 5 goals here (all of stringers were in this position). This was a clear backline failure, or midfield failure allowing the ball in too quickly. Should be the most ferociously defended part of the ground.

3. Essendon kicking 7 goals from 50m is wild. They strolled in too easily from this range - but even so they kicked 6.3 from OUTSIDE 50! Credit to them cos that's actually awesome. Our only goal from outside 50 was from Amon when Chol dished off.

4. Our lack of midfield defense helped their accuracy a lot. Essendon were free to roam and had lots of time and space in that 50-70m from goal range. So as much as they had a day out with accuracy - we served it to them in a big way.

 

[ahhhhhh]

Yeh the accuracy thing was amazing.

A few things:
1. We missed about 5 shots from the right pocket in the first quarter. Enough to make me wonder if there was wind or something making that spot particularly difficult. Note Essendon only had one shot from that part of the ground.

2. Essendon's accuracy was boosted by the shots they had from 10-30m out. They got 5 goals here (all of stringers were in this position). This was a clear backline failure, or midfield failure allowing the ball in too quickly. Should be the most ferociously defended part of the ground.

3. Essendon kicking 7 goals from 50m is wild. They strolled in too easily from this range - but even so they kicked 6.3 from OUTSIDE 50! Credit to them cos that's actually awesome. Our only goal from outside 50 was from Amon when Chol dished off.

4. Our lack of midfield defense helped their accuracy a lot. Essendon were free to roam and had lots of time and space in that 50-70m from goal range. So as much as they had a day out with accuracy - we served it to them in a big way.

There's the context their remarkable accuracy requires. It was as much our failing as it was their luck.

 

[Judd2Sewell]

The biggest frustration with the loss is that we now have a tough run coming up - bar North. Realistically we could be staring down the barrel if we don't pinch a win outside of the North game.

 

[Sixpence]

Yeah I'm not really sure about the optimism out of this game. We were never a chance. I think the players knew it as well.

WTF? We kicked 17 behinds and were 8 points down half way through the last. How the **** were we never a chance?

 

[Suntory Boss Coffee]

The biggest frustration with the loss is that we now have a tough run coming up - bar North. Realistically we could be staring down the barrel if we don't pinch a win before outside of the North game.

Could snag Easter Monday if our midfield turns up.

 

[lethalselbow]

Bottom line is Finn as sub was a bonehead decision.
He plays, and Merrett doesn't get 31 touches & 8 marks,and the supply
into their forwards suffers.

It was a terrible decision for sub.

Didn't we have a ruckman as sub for a game? Or am i remembering that wrongly.

 

[eldorado]

Yeah I'm not really sure about the optimism out of this game. We were never a chance. I think the players knew it as well.

Never a chance? When?

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

We won the inside 50’s.
Won more contested footy.
Took more intercepts.
Took more marks inside 50.
Had more shots on goal.
Won the first possession in the middle(then coughed it up).

“Never a chance and the players knew it”.

 

[Mr Lizard]

It was a terrible decision for sub.

Didn't we have a ruckman as sub for a game? Or am i remembering that wrongly.

Lloyd Meek was sub against Fremantle in the last game of last season

 

[Stranglers]

I'll take this year's effort over last year's every day of the week. At least more than half the team showed up this time.

 

[ahhhhhh]

We won the inside 50’s.
Won more contested footy.
Took more intercepts.
Took more marks inside 50.
Had more shots on goal.
Won the first possession in the middle(then coughed it up).

“Never a chance and the players knew it”.

Why did we lose then if we beat them in all these 'key metrics'?

 

[Sixpence]

Why did we lose then if we beat them in all these 'key metrics'?

This is going to blow your mind, but ... they scored more points than us.

 

[Hodginator]

We lost due to two key things in my opinion.

Finn as sub was a shocker.

Kicking for goal.
Chol 2.2
Gunston 1.2
Lewis 1.2
Watson 0.3
Punky 0.2
Total 4.11

Change that to
Chol 3.1
Gunston 2.1
Lewis 2.1
Watson 1.2
Punky 1.1
Total 9.6

I realise that’s over simplified a little, but it would have swung the game in a completely different direction if our forwards had their kicking boots on.

 

[eldorado]

Why did we lose then if we beat them in all these 'key metrics'?

In the light of the statistics, "Why did we lose?" is a way more pertinent question than your rather imbecilic comment of 'We were never a chance"

 

[BIGHAWK23]

Why did we lose then if we beat them in all these 'key metrics'?

Didnt kick straight

Fairly simple

Pretty hard to understand is it?

Or had we already lost the game in your opinion?

 

[AmericanHawk]

We got into some great positions, just had horrific accuracy when going for goals as I put before. Would be different if we didn't get into good positions and got completely shut down. However, that was not the case overall imo.We got some good marks as far as good positions go, and just got into some good positions in general, but we simply were not accurate enough.

I am sure a lot of the other losing teams over the weekend will say the exact same thing, but doesn't make it even less than the truth.

 

[ahhhhhh]

Didnt kick straight

Fairly simple

Pretty hard to understand is it?

Or had we already lost the game in your opinion?

Refer to the shot chart posted earlier in the thread. We didn't kick straight because our attempts were from the pocket.