View Full Version : Alastair Clarkson's coaching.
Gaborone
16 Apr 2007, 11:54
I am becoming increasingly worried about ACs coaching. The first half of the Kangaroos game was appalling not just because of player (both sides) fumbling but also because of the really negative ‘game plan’ that AC adopted and his continued failure to understand that with young players you have to be simple and direct.
It took two terrible quarters before Hawthorn started running through the centre. When they did they brushed the Kangaroos aside. When they reverted to chipping to the flanks and ignoring the most direct route to goal the flow stopped and the Kangaroos got back in to the game.
When will AC learn that for Hawthorn to play premiership brand football they have to always believe that they can demolish opposition teams? That belief can only come from taking the opposition sides head-on. There should be no fancy stuff, no complicated game plans, only simple, direct football that trusts players to run and make space and beat their opponent.
There is plenty of time to work out the complicated game plans in the future when the team has learned to do the simple things well. I think the best example of all this is the Swans. They had Rodney Eade as coach and under him they learned how to be direct. When Paul Roos took over the Swans he already had a team that knew how to play fast, high scoring football. What he then did was ADD an intense gang tackling defensive element to the team. The effectiveness of the Swans is that they can switch from defensive to offensive football in the instant. Not Hawthorn. We know little about offensive football. We lumber on, seemingly afraid to take a risk.
AC has said that we are in a learning phase (or words to that effect). If that is true then he has to ensure that he is teaching the team the appropriate things at the right time, and building their individual and collective confidence by allowing them to be proactive rather than reactive.
As a passionate Hawk supporter I am prepared for us to lose games trying to create the play. I am not sure though that I can stand much more of the Brisbane/ first half Kangaroos brand of football though. Listening to the boos from Hawthorn (and Kangaroo) supporters at half time I think I am in the majority.
cschreuder61
16 Apr 2007, 12:08
It was the Roos flooding that stopped us going long and direct.
It is not that simple just to kick long when they have that many numbers behind the ball. We did kick long early and it got turned over continously and the Roos kept rebounding and getting scoring shots. We had to control the game in the middle and the on rebound the get the game open, which we did in the second half (thanks to Clarkson) by forcing Harris out of the centre square.
North had all 22 players out of their forward 50 on occasions, its hard to go long when there is that kind of flood taking place. We did well to readjust and conter North's defenisve style of play, as I don't think anyone expected them to be that negative against us considering that actually took the game on against Port Adelaide in Adelaide.
We look good when we are up and running and playing on, but people need to understand that sides will try and stop this. Sometimes teams (Brisbane) will block the space in which we try to counter attack which will cause us to have to come up with other avenues. We couldn't against Brisbane, but have against Roos and Dees.
I think Clarkson deserves credit for changing the game and making it watchable in the second half by opening up the game and taking it on, rather than letting the Roos suffocate the game.
Didn't we win on the weekend? If you can't enjoy the wins....... not sure what you can.
It was the Roos flooding that stopped us going long and direct.
Hooray for sanity!
Against Brisbane we got killed because we bombed it long to our forward line where Brisbane played numbers back.
In the first half of the Kangaroos game the same occurred.
When it's one on one footy we can play 'long & direct'. When the opposition plays men back we have to be more precise.
Clarkson coached well yesterday. If the Roos were able to play the negative style they played in the first half we would likely have lost or barely scrapped a win.
To force the Kangaroos to open up our forward line was an excellent job imo.
'Bam!'bell Brown
16 Apr 2007, 13:22
I am becoming increasingly worried about ACs coaching. The first half of the Kangaroos game was appalling not just because of player (both sides) fumbling but also because of the really negative ‘game plan’ that AC adopted and his continued failure to understand that with young players you have to be simple and direct.
It took two terrible quarters before Hawthorn started running through the centre. When they did they brushed the Kangaroos aside. When they reverted to chipping to the flanks and ignoring the most direct route to goal the flow stopped and the Kangaroos got back in to the game.
When will AC learn that for Hawthorn to play premiership brand football they have to always believe that they can demolish opposition teams? That belief can only come from taking the opposition sides head-on. There should be no fancy stuff, no complicated game plans, only simple, direct football that trusts players to run and make space and beat their opponent.
There is plenty of time to work out the complicated game plans in the future when the team has learned to do the simple things well. I think the best example of all this is the Swans. They had Rodney Eade as coach and under him they learned how to be direct. When Paul Roos took over the Swans he already had a team that knew how to play fast, high scoring football. What he then did was ADD an intense gang tackling defensive element to the team. The effectiveness of the Swans is that they can switch from defensive to offensive football in the instant. Not Hawthorn. We know little about offensive football. We lumber on, seemingly afraid to take a risk.
AC has said that we are in a learning phase (or words to that effect). If that is true then he has to ensure that he is teaching the team the appropriate things at the right time, and building their individual and collective confidence by allowing them to be proactive rather than reactive.
As a passionate Hawk supporter I am prepared for us to lose games trying to create the play. I am not sure though that I can stand much more of the Brisbane/ first half Kangaroos brand of football though. Listening to the boos from Hawthorn (and Kangaroo) supporters at half time I think I am in the majority.
Gaborone...You are just plain wrong. If you didn't see at least three (usually four) Hawthorn forwards stationed in our forward 50 at ALL times and a completely empty Kangaroos forward HALF, then you weren't even watching the game.
AC did his best to beat the flood by encouraging attacking play and it got us over the line. Well done AC!
Heropsychodreamer
16 Apr 2007, 13:40
I can understand people being critincal of AC after the lions game... i think hemade a mistake, but i'm willing to leave that cos he can learn from experience... but we cant blame EVERY bad patch on the coach. There are the players, the conditions (well not at the dome), and the opposition tactics to take into account
I am becoming increasingly worried about ACs coaching. The first half of the Kangaroos game was appalling not just because of player (both sides) fumbling but also because of the really negative ‘game plan’ that AC adopted and his continued failure to understand that with young players you have to be simple and direct.
It's been discussed to death on other forums, but I will say this - don't confuse symptom with cause. Tait is an exceedingly quick fast bowler with some talent. If he sprays wides all over the shop, does that mean that's the game-plan? Or is he really trying to move the ball on or about off-stump?
(A)Plan ===(B)Execution===>(C)Result
For whatever the reasons (inexperience being the more obvious) we're incapable of executing our game-plan consistently. I suspect that over time, we'll improve in that regard and, oddly enough, so will the perceptions of AC's coaching. After all, even the good teams can get dragged off-plan, otherwise they'd go undefeated.
It was the Roos flooding that stopped us going long and direct.
It is not that simple just to kick long when they have that many numbers behind the ball. We did kick long early and it got turned over continously and the Roos kept rebounding and getting scoring shots. We had to control the game in the middle and the on rebound the get the game open, which we did in the second half (thanks to Clarkson) by forcing Harris out of the centre square.
North had all 22 players out of their forward 50 on occasions, its hard to go long when there is that kind of flood taking place. We did well to readjust and conter North's defenisve style of play, as I don't think anyone expected them to be that negative against us considering that actually took the game on against Port Adelaide in Adelaide.
We look good when we are up and running and playing on, but people need to understand that sides will try and stop this. Sometimes teams (Brisbane) will block the space in which we try to counter attack which will cause us to have to come up with other avenues. We couldn't against Brisbane, but have against Roos and Dees.
I think Clarkson deserves credit for changing the game and making it watchable in the second half by opening up the game and taking it on, rather than letting the Roos suffocate the game.
Didn't we win on the weekend? If you can't enjoy the wins....... not sure what you can.
Great post. While it is easy to say lets go long etc etc etc, we can't be one-dimensional. If we continually played the same way, opposition clubs will have no problem executing a strategy to negate what we are doing.
What we need to make sure of is that we are able to adjust to the situation and attack when appropriate. I thought we did quite well against a side so intent on blocking up play.
Next week is a first test. No doubt Geelong will come out a play attacking football and hopefully our club will be able to implement a style of play suited to this.
Every one is taling about the potency of Geelong's forward line. Ours isn't too bad either.
Gaborone
16 Apr 2007, 16:38
It is interesting that most of you felt that it was the Kangaroos that were stifling play. From where I sat Hawthorn's game plan was exactly the same. We had an additional player in defence. At times during the game we had no one outside of the forward or defensive 50s. When the game turned around in the second half the kangaroos continued to play as they had in the first but we changed. That is to ACs credit but what was stopping him at quarter time?
In essence what I am saying about our game plan is that in the first instance it has to be simple and direct and it has to be built on trusting the players to execute something simple. Despite a couple of loses this year, Rodney Eade has been able to do it and he did it in his first year at the doggies. AC is now in his third so either our players are not that smart or AC is not getting his message across.
If you want confirmation of the real Hawthorn gameplan watch where the players look first when they get possession. Too many times it is sideways or backwards.
Dont get me wrong, I want AC to be successful as I have written previously. There is a lot to like about him. He's just got to learn to be more offensive because if he doesn't we will not be able to stop another team when it gets on a roll, or bury one when we get on top!
cschreuder61
16 Apr 2007, 16:56
The player in defense was Jacobs but his opponent (a forward from the Roos) was being placed in their defense. We could either have Jacobs follow him down and further block the space for Williams and keep their forward line open, or leave him their and try to force the Roos to be more accountable.
He has been offensive and considering the inexperience of our forwards and no consistent big men on the ground, he's doing well.
Other sides have Fevola, Lloyd, Tredrea, Brown, etc. etc. we have.... Williams a small leading forward so we need to be smarter. By all means attack and make space but we don't have a consistent tall to kick to. Boyle and Franklin have helped and we have been much more direct that 2005, but we are still looking for that CHF rock and we haven't got that yet. So we play to our strengths and that's but moving the ball through hands and feet in the middle to kick long into our forward line.
Opposition sides know this and block the space in the middle and down the corridor, that's why we have to go out wider on occasions, not because we decide its the best way.
If you want confirmation of the real Hawthorn gameplan watch where the players look first when they get possession. Too many times it is sideways or backwards.
Is that evidence of a game-plan or inexperienced players unsure of themselves? Secondly, if the game plan calls for aggressive running from the backline, isn't that where they would look to give off if they're not in a position to play-on?
In essence what I am saying about our game plan is that in the first instance it has to be simple and direct and it has to be built on trusting the players to execute something simple. It is. It just doesn't get executed that way all the time.
FriarTuck
16 Apr 2007, 17:18
I am not convinced about AC. Look at what Lethal is doing in Brissy. He has a well drilled squad that all appear to be on the same page. I dont see the same sort of cohesion with us.
Not being able to hit a target makes us look worse than what we are. this lack of skill makes going wide the smart option. I would like to see us take more risks and keep the ball in the guts as our priority.
Phil McCreviss
16 Apr 2007, 17:37
I am almost scared to post after the caining I got last time for my opinion on Clarkson's round 1 display but I will give it a crack.
I can say that I am happy we are 2-1. Winning form is good form and you can't fault AC's comeback after the first game.
How exciting was it to kick 17 odd goals against the Dees last week though? Who cares if the opposition kicks 20 goals and beats us. The result? You get a game like Carlton v Essendon which is exciting and draws supporters through the gates. Thats where I would love us to be every week.
I was at the game last night and I actually started talking to my girlfriend at half time about current affairs. It was pretty dam boring. The second half opened up a bit and our forwards came in to it as did our midfield. I really don't know if we dropped to the Kangas level or we reverted to some of the round 1 habits. I envisage an answer this Sunday to that question.
cschreuder61
16 Apr 2007, 22:36
I am not convinced about AC. Look at what Lethal is doing in Brissy. He has a well drilled squad that all appear to be on the same page. I dont see the same sort of cohesion with us.
Not being able to hit a target makes us look worse than what we are. this lack of skill makes going wide the smart option. I would like to see us take more risks and keep the ball in the guts as our priority.
Brisbane are rebuilding with Jonathon Brown. Its a lot easier to structure a side around a point like that. We don't have a definate target up forward yet. Williams, Franklin, Boyle Dixon have their merits as a group, but individually would struggle to be the main focus without support. That's why it looks a little messy at times, its very in experienced.
Boyle is the CHF and hasn't played 10 games, Franklin is 20, Dixon and Williams are experienced but are smaller forwards so we have to be innovative to get the group to mix together and be patient to let is settle and find the best formular.
I think ourbackline surprisingly is looking like its taking shape, Midfield is getting there, probably lacking one polished player in there to assist the play making, and forward line is still evolving (but much improved from the last two years)
So I take it, form this thread, that Dermie was right when I heard him on SEN sunday night.
"If you're going to criticise a coach and a gameplan can you at least have some sort of understanding of the game. And why it is playing out that way."
The reason the game was so ugly on sunday was because of the tactics Laidley put in place to stop us from being able to run and deliver long to our forwards. His ploy stopped us from playing attractive football. Ending in bogged down possession football with no flow.
lethalselbow
17 Apr 2007, 07:56
Most of you guys are spot on. Laidley bogged up the game by going negative from the start. He had the flood going, but Hawthorn just kept at it and at it and by the 3rd quarter the superior running strength of our team saw had the Kangaroos huffing and puffing.
No negatives for Clarko in the game. All good. Remember, we would have won by heaps aside from poor kicking! Also, the Hawks are still getting used to polishing off a game and winning in style.
All negatives for Laidley. He went negative and he lost! If he won he could have justified it, but basically he got smashed, turned away his own supporters and won't see out the season!
Credit when credit is due. Clarko went alright. (We are missing a few also)
Go check out the losers board and you'll find threads like
Laidleys record of stuff ups.
Another <insert name> for coaching job in 2008
Has Laidley 'lost' the players?
They knew who got thumped and out-coached!
Just remember, we won, and won handsomely! :D
Fabulous
17 Apr 2007, 10:30
It was the Roos flooding that stopped us going long and direct.
It is not that simple just to kick long when they have that many numbers behind the ball. We did kick long early and it got turned over continously and the Roos kept rebounding and getting scoring shots.
We actually kicked it long more in the second half. 35 1st/55 2nd half. All that happened was Kangaroos stopped getting the numbers to the contests which meant we had a free player when we got possession back, ran through the lines and kicked it long.
The problem we are having in the first half of all games is that we are playing on old habits that we have been using for the past two years.
The good news is that blind Freddy can now see that we are more successful if we persist with long kicking and back our ability to deliver or to have the numbers at the contests to win it back.
cschreuder61
17 Apr 2007, 10:41
I never said we kicked longer in the first half. I did say we tried to early in the first, but due the circumstances of the game weren't able to.
The second half opened up because of what we managed to do in the middle. Harris was clogging up the middle a lot in the first, when we got him away from the play and got Crawford running towards goal suddenly Lewis got his hands on it and Mitchell got on top of Harris and the game opened up.
We didn't suddenly just decide "lets kick longer" we managed to open things up and win kick ball which enabled us to beat the flood which we couldn't do in the first half. This and a combination of the Roos tiring and not being able to continously play the defensive run back at all cost game plan.
Teams will try to stop us playing the way we want, this is when it falls apart due to inexperience and the young players not sure how to beat it. Crawf always looks to play and back his ability at all costs, our Young players haven't got that ability or confidence yet so we can't blame it on tactics when things go wrong.
Again its not as simple as just long kicking, there is more to it as witnesses in the first half against the Roos when in a flood. You have to get on top in certain areas in order to break to flood and open the game up, and that is easier said than done because you have to allow that on occasions the opposition is going to be on top of you.
Fabulous
17 Apr 2007, 10:46
The simplest way to beat opponents getting to the contest (as opposed to your theory of flooding) is to get the ball there quickly through a combination of run and long kicking to beat them. We have not been doing that in the first half not because of the opposition but by choice of too many players.
cschreuder61
17 Apr 2007, 10:52
I agree that the best way to beat the numbers going back is play on and kick direct, but you can't always have it your way when the opposition will try to slow it down, cause stoppages and block space at all occasions.
We have to adjust when that is happening, it is widely acknowledged the Roos did just that (and have copped it from a few people and their supporters for doing it).
Its easy to sit here and just say "play on kick long" but the reality is AFL footy is a tough sport and the opposition is doing everything they can to stop you playing the way you want.