Player Watch Welcome to Hawthorn, James Worpel, pick #43 2017 - Peter Crimmins medalist 2019

[Slysh]

I don't know how "Mitchell and Worpel can't play together" has become a self-evident truth to a lot of people.

Perhaps they 'aren't' playing well together, but that doesn't mean they can't. That's a coaching issue.

I've read elsewhere on the Hawthorn net that we need to get rid of one of them, because they are both inside ball-winners, and we can't play both. Apparently, each club only needs one inside ball winner at any one time.

Personally, it seems to me that if we win, it's not an issue, but when we lose, it is. And rather than say "Worpel (or Mitchell) didn't do enough, it's "They can't play together!"

It isn’t about just those two, it is also the fact that O’meara and Shiels are very similar players.

it is a pretty one paced midfield with limited foot skills and often gets killed the other way.

On paper that midfield is better than it has performed over the past year and a bit and would argue even in wins it has been somewhat of an issue.

 

[Milkshaker]

I don't know how "Mitchell and Worpel can't play together" has become a self-evident truth to a lot of people.

Perhaps they 'aren't' playing well together, but that doesn't mean they can't. That's a coaching issue.

I've read elsewhere on the Hawthorn net that we need to get rid of one of them, because they are both inside ball-winners, and we can't play both. Apparently, each club only needs one inside ball winner at any one time.

Personally, it seems to me that if we win, it's not an issue, but when we lose, it is. And rather than say "Worpel (or Mitchell) didn't do enough, it's "They can't play together!"

We have only won 6 of our last 19 games to be fair. I feel last year was an aberration but that win loss ratio will lend itself to a bit more 'critical' analysis I suppose. Four of the six wins were North, Essendon, Carlton and a dead rubber against GCS.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

We have a massive issue in the ruck. I believe it's coaching direction more than the players themselves.

We have rucks that engage their opponent early with the sole aim to nullify the opponent tap, creating a stoppage or contested ball. They are pretty good at this, but woeful at getting a clear tap to (genuine) advantage.
We have a group onballers that stand flat-footed, hoping to react first to dive on the ball and restrict their opponent. They're pretty good at this too, but it makes them stagnant - little win, little loss. "Control"

You can break a ruck contest into 5 different outcomes: Clear takeaway, Opposition Clear takeaway, contested win, contested loss and repeat stoppage.

For mine we would be last in clear takeaways - we just don't try to do it and when it happens it's almost by accident (and our forwards aren't ready).
I believe we would also be last in clear opposition takeaways - we just struggle to stop them when opposition ruck is on top.

We do very well in Contested Win, exceptional in Contested Loss, and pretty good in forcing a repeat stoppage. "Control"

Is it that our rucks are inept? Are our onballers unable to win the ball on the move? A breakdown between our mids and our structures failing? OR is it a coaching direction? "Control"

Only a small percentage of ruck contests result in a clear takeaway (either way) - hence why so many think rucks are over-rated. But have we gone too far the other way?

I believe it is part of Clarkson's greater gamestyle - we don't want the ruck to influence the game (too many variables, single point of failure).

Instead, we want our HBF-line to be our primary line - intercepting rushed opposition kicks and using space out wide to rebound. It's why we value intercept marking and disposal over contested ability in defence; why we value endurance and speed down forward over marking ability and goal-sense; and why we value tough inside players in the middle over more balanced runners.

 

[LegendLewis]

Thank you everybody for caring so much about the club that we invest (way too much) time coming on here and trying to sort out how to make our team better.
I enjoy everybody's opinion and suggestions as we all see different things and therefore bring different points of views.
Cheers

 

[LegendLewis]

We have a massive issue in the ruck. I believe it's coaching direction more than the players themselves.

We have rucks that engage their opponent early with the sole aim to nullify the opponent tap, creating a stoppage or contested ball. They are pretty good at this, but woeful at getting a clear tap to (genuine) advantage.
We have a group onballers that stand flat-footed, hoping to react first to dive on the ball and restrict their opponent. They're pretty good at this too, but it makes them stagnant - little win, little loss. "Control"

You can break a ruck contest into 5 different outcomes: Clear takeaway, Opposition Clear takeaway, contested win, contested loss and repeat stoppage.

For mine we would be last in clear takeaways - we just don't try to do it and when it happens it's almost by accident (and our forwards aren't ready).
I believe we would also be last in clear opposition takeaways - we just struggle to stop them when opposition ruck is on top.

We do very well in Contested Win, exceptional in Contested Loss, and pretty good in forcing a repeat stoppage. "Control"

Is it that our rucks are inept? Are our onballers unable to win the ball on the move? A breakdown between our mids and our structures failing? OR is it a coaching direction? "Control"

Only a small percentage of ruck contests result in a clear takeaway (either way) - hence why so many think rucks are over-rated. But have we gone too far the other way?

I believe it is part of Clarkson's greater gamestyle - we don't want the ruck to influence the game (too many variables, single point of failure).

Instead, we want our HBF-line to be our primary line - intercepting rushed opposition kicks and using space out wide to rebound. It's why we value intercept marking and disposal over contested ability in defence; why we value endurance and speed down forward over marking ability and goal-sense; and why we value tough inside players in the middle over more balanced runners.

Great write up. I've been thinking similar things with CBA that we 'seem' more interested in tackling who gets it or corralling who gets it rather than win first possession.

 

[rei154]

We have a massive issue in the ruck. I believe it's coaching direction more than the players themselves.

We have rucks that engage their opponent early with the sole aim to nullify the opponent tap, creating a stoppage or contested ball. They are pretty good at this, but woeful at getting a clear tap to (genuine) advantage.
We have a group onballers that stand flat-footed, hoping to react first to dive on the ball and restrict their opponent. They're pretty good at this too, but it makes them stagnant - little win, little loss. "Control"

You can break a ruck contest into 5 different outcomes: Clear takeaway, Opposition Clear takeaway, contested win, contested loss and repeat stoppage.

For mine we would be last in clear takeaways - we just don't try to do it and when it happens it's almost by accident (and our forwards aren't ready).
I believe we would also be last in clear opposition takeaways - we just struggle to stop them when opposition ruck is on top.

We do very well in Contested Win, exceptional in Contested Loss, and pretty good in forcing a repeat stoppage. "Control"

Is it that our rucks are inept? Are our onballers unable to win the ball on the move? A breakdown between our mids and our structures failing? OR is it a coaching direction? "Control"

Only a small percentage of ruck contests result in a clear takeaway (either way) - hence why so many think rucks are over-rated. But have we gone too far the other way?

I believe it is part of Clarkson's greater gamestyle - we don't want the ruck to influence the game (too many variables, single point of failure).

Instead, we want our HBF-line to be our primary line - intercepting rushed opposition kicks and using space out wide to rebound. It's why we value intercept marking and disposal over contested ability in defence; why we value endurance and speed down forward over marking ability and goal-sense; and why we value tough inside players in the middle over more balanced runners.

Funnily enough one of the last memorable clear takeaways I remember us having was where Worps received the tap then his Lewis streaking out on the lead- that was something special.
I agree, too much variance in the ruck to have a gameplan dependent on winning that battle. I think where we struggle is our mids are too clear cut in their positions; oppo know Worpel is going to be offensively focused, as is Titch, whilst Shiels and JOM are defensively minded. If we can see Worps take another step in his defensive work rate in the middle without it detracting from his offensive play I think he'll graduate from a top of the line B grade midfielder to an A grader.

 

[Judd2Sewell]

I don't understand why - sorry but he's a bull, not a running skillful flanker, sometimes we try to hard to "change" players i think - like all the forwards we have picked up to turn into defenders = madness.

If one of the other midfielders, or Worps himself, is in a slump or we can't have them all in at once for the balance of the TEAM then drop one. Team should come first.

Goes for any player if we have better in form players busting their arse to get into the side.

If we want him to be multi positional take the pressure off and let him learn at Box Hill for a few weeks or just accept he is what he is, a bull that Mitchel has to learn to share the middle with.

Both Mitch and Worps keeping their feet would make a big difference as well. It might make all the difference.

Not sure if he's the same calibre of player Lewis was, or whether he could make the same transition that Lewis did - but he is probably going through a similar at the moment.

Lewis had to adapt, shed kg's and develop an outside game. It worked for him, so hopefully it can work for Worpel too.

I still don't see how he couldn't work alongside Mitchell though. Worpel needs to switch on defensively and that would make a huge difference.

 

[Judd2Sewell]

I don't know how "Mitchell and Worpel can't play together" has become a self-evident truth to a lot of people.

Perhaps they 'aren't' playing well together, but that doesn't mean they can't. That's a coaching issue.

I've read elsewhere on the Hawthorn net that we need to get rid of one of them, because they are both inside ball-winners, and we can't play both. Apparently, each club only needs one inside ball winner at any one time.

Personally, it seems to me that if we win, it's not an issue, but when we lose, it is. And rather than say "Worpel (or Mitchell) didn't do enough, it's "They can't play together!"

I agree in that it has to be a coaching issue.

Last year Brisbane has Neale, Llyons, J. Berry and McLuggage dominating in the midfield. The first three players are all very much contested ball winners, with McLuggage providing the class.

Last year Geelong had Dangerfield and Selwood complimented by Duncan and Guthrie.

WBD - Libba, Dunkley and the Bont with Macrae, Hunter.

Teams can succeed with multiple ball winners playing next to each other. It is predominantly a coaching issue ATM.

 

[Milkshaker]

Thank you everybody for caring so much about the club that we invest (way too much) time coming on here and trying to sort out how to make our team better.
I enjoy everybody's opinion and suggestions as we all see different things and therefore bring different points of views.
Cheers

Way too much time is true. My current work situation is bereft of footy talk. It is actually dire. Hence this is the only place I can waffle on about footy till the weekend arrives and I see a few of the lads.

 

[CHUBBSS]

I think where we struggle is our mids are too clear cut in their positions; oppo know Worpel is going to be offensively focused, as is Titch, whilst Shiels and JOM are defensively minded.

This point here is so important and it makes our mids looks far worst then what should be. We have our deficiencies working as a unit but the opposition read us like a book with cegler in the ruck. Can he change his game to fix this or is it now to far gone? (Hale was a master of the defensive ruck work) Cegler impacts negatively how we matchup in the mids and his defensive tap work isn't great anyway - around the ground he is pretty good. Could Reeves offer the same value and more up forward whilst developing into something more?

Their is something wrong with how we line up and and how the midfield unit is working together. I know Moore is not ready but he would learn a lot and offer something different to the mix - would far prefer him to roll through then Philips. Wingard might be our most important player to return in terms of team balance (if he plays mid).

On worpel he should be playing mid and learning another role in patches across the the game - Or Mitchell and Worpel need to sit down and learn how to play together - they could be amazing together if they learned how to manage who is going for the ball at every stoppage - it would also mean they are managing their fuel tickets better and allow those other roles in the team to be played.

Gametime you think would fix this but the coaches don't play them together so is it a personality clash or is something else going on. Would be interesting to know how many midfield setups and position and players we use throughout a game compared to other teams or even the hawks from 2010-16.

 

[Billyc]

It isn’t about just those two, it is also the fact that O’meara and Shiels are very similar players.

it is a pretty one paced midfield with limited foot skills and often gets killed the other way.

On paper that midfield is better than it has performed over the past year and a bit and would argue even in wins it has been somewhat of an issue.

Yes it is not a Mitchell/Worpel issue, it is the Mitchell/Worpel/O’Meara/Shiels mix. They are all good players individually (Mitchell a star) but it’s a poor mix. They are all very similar - low impact accumulators. Four is too many.

It’s similar to Adelaide persevering last year with the Crouch brothers and Sloane. Individually good players but poor as a mix.

Worpel is the youngest of our quartet and the one with the best scope to develop. Up to the coaching staff to work out how to do that because right now he is struggling

 

[cryptor]

It isn’t about just those two, it is also the fact that O’meara and Shiels are very similar players.

it is a pretty one paced midfield with limited foot skills and often gets killed the other way.

On paper that midfield is better than it has performed over the past year and a bit and would argue even in wins it has been somewhat of an issue.

I recall that there was often similar criticisms made about our midfield mix of Mitchell/Hodge/Sewell/Lewis/Shiels. Particularly the "one paced" thing.

Eventually we started winning with the same core of players and those criticisms stopped (at least until we lost).

What changed? Clarko started rotating other players through the middle to provide variety, but it still took time for the team to settle. He's doing the same thing again now but it's only been 2 rounds so I think we need to wait and see how it settles.

If it doesn't show good signs of working out by mid year then perhaps we'll try to address it with a mid-season draft selection, or otherwise get serious with a FA target.

 

[Billyc]

I recall that there was often similar criticisms made about our midfield mix of Mitchell/Hodge/Sewell/Lewis/Shiels. Particularly the "one paced" thing.

Eventually we started winning with the same core of players and those criticisms stopped (at least until we lost).

What changed? Clarko started rotating other players through the middle to provide variety, but it still took time for the team to settle. He's doing the same thing again now but it's only been 2 rounds so I think we need to wait and see how it settles.

If it doesn't show good signs of working out by mid year then perhaps we'll try to address it with a mid-season draft selection, or otherwise get serious with a FA target.

Inapt comparison. Those guys were all time greats.

Also it hasn’t only been 2 rounds. We have been going with a midfield largely built around at least 3 of Mitchell O Meara Shiels and Worpel for several years and haven’t won a final.

Some weeks it will work and we will win. But I reckon we will lose more than we win until we get some proper variety in there

 

[Blackhawk42]

Worps only had 6 centre bounce attendances against the Tigers last week. Burgoyne had 19.

We need to reverse that.

 

[Slysh]

I recall that there was often similar criticisms made about our midfield mix of Mitchell/Hodge/Sewell/Lewis/Shiels. Particularly the "one paced" thing.

Eventually we started winning with the same core of players and those criticisms stopped (at least until we lost).

What changed? Clarko started rotating other players through the middle to provide variety, but it still took time for the team to settle. He's doing the same thing again now but it's only been 2 rounds so I think we need to wait and see how it settles.

If it doesn't show good signs of working out by mid year then perhaps we'll try to address it with a mid-season draft selection, or otherwise get serious with a FA target.

Bit of a difference, Mitchell had elite footskills as did Hodge, Lewis was a very good outside player as well.

I am not saying it can't work, i am simply saying i think the reason we have moved Worpel forward in to a new role is because the club doesn't feel the current balance can work. Happy to be proven wron.g

 

[cryptor]

Inapt comparison. Those guys were all time greats.

Also it hasn’t only been 2 rounds. We have been going with a midfield largely built around at least 3 of Mitchell O Meara Shiels and Worpel for several years and haven’t won a final.

Some weeks it will work and we will win. But I reckon we will lose more than we win until we get some proper variety in there

Yes, they are all time greats. But they weren't always that. And they didn't always have the cohesion that allowed them to reach that status. It took time.

It's only been 2 rounds (ie. this pre-season on) since Clarko has publicly acknowledged that this midfield mix required a return to rotating other players through it. But it's not a light switch where we will instantly see great results, and it doesn't mean individuals won't still take time to settle into their roles and find form.

I'm not saying what we have right now is working. Just that changes have and are being made and it's too early to declare it a failure - which it may end up being.

 

[Judd2Sewell]

Worps only had 6 centre bounce attendances against the Tigers last week. Burgoyne had 19.

We need to reverse that.

Seems absolutely ridiculous

 

[Dave Id]

I am not saying it can't work, i am simply saying i think the reason we have moved Worpel forward in to a new role is because the club doesn't feel the current balance can work. Happy to be proven wron.g

Been put in Graham Arthur's preferred position.

Both started playing for Hawthorn around the same age.

 

[Brishawk]

Seems absolutely ridiculous

Won’t see it this week. Or ever again I hope.

 

[HODGEYROAD]

I agree in that it has to be a coaching issue.

Last year Brisbane has Neale, Llyons, J. Berry and McLuggage dominating in the midfield. The first three players are all very much contested ball winners, with McLuggage providing the class.

Last year Geelong had Dangerfield and Selwood complimented by Duncan and Guthrie.

WBD - Libba, Dunkley and the Bont with Macrae, Hunter.

Teams can succeed with multiple ball winners playing next to each other. It is predominantly a coaching issue ATM.

Can't be as we have Clarkson.

 

[tommyk72]

Inapt comparison. Those guys were all time greats.

Also it hasn’t only been 2 rounds. We have been going with a midfield largely built around at least 3 of Mitchell O Meara Shiels and Worpel for several years and haven’t won a final.

Some weeks it will work and we will win. But I reckon we will lose more than we win until we get some proper variety in there

They weren't until they were, if you know what I mean.

 

[Judd2Sewell]

Can't be as we have Clarkson.

The onus is on Clarko, Mitchell and Worpel himself to work it out. If they can't then maybe Worpel just isn't the player we had originally hoped. There is still time on their side though.

 

[Dave Id]

No way to speak about our future captain

 

[HODGEYROAD]

The onus is on Clarko, Mitchell and Worpel himself to work it out. If they can't then maybe Worpel just isn't the player we had originally hoped. There is still time on their side though.

This was always my fear, I was never as high on him as most Hawks fans, hopefully I'm wrong though and he reaches A grade status one day.

 

[Judd2Sewell]

35 touch game coming up with at least 2 huge tackled on Selwood to boot