Coach Sam Mitchell's direction for the club

[CHUBBSS]

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but Newcombe and Nash were both Clarko hires. He brought Mitchell back to develop and nurture young talent.

Clarko is responsible for their success, just like Sam is.

This whole delineating what happened last year, from Clarko's reign is honesty just nonsense.

He hired the guy who made those changes, to make those changes.

Heck, Nash was probably only still on the list because Clarko saw the potential in him, and the promise of it all coming together for him. Which it finally did, with a tweak from Sam.

But I do agree, the arrival of those two players made a difference to our stoppage work. As a team it came along just as the development of our insanely attacking and capable back six started to really click.

But those are all Clarko inspired changes.

100 percent it's all Sam from here, and he will continue doing what he'd started and moving in the direction he's shown an inclination toward already.

But in 2021 Clarkson was a coach working with people he hired. He hired them to do what they did. If you're suggesting it was somehow flukey for him, you're ignoring a pretty massive body of work.

Clarko was one game away from playing Nash into retirement. It was ridiculous in the end

 

[Jazzfan]

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but Newcombe and Nash were both Clarko hires. He brought Mitchell back to develop and nurture young talent.

Clarko is responsible for their success, just like Sam is.

This whole delineating what happened last year, from Clarko's reign is honesty just nonsense.

He hired the guy who made those changes, to make those changes.

Heck, Nash was probably only still on the list because Clarko saw the potential in him, and the promise of it all coming together for him. Which it finally did, with a tweak from Sam.

But I do agree, the arrival of those two players made a difference to our stoppage work. As a team it came along just as the development of our insanely attacking and capable back six started to really click.

But those are all Clarko inspired changes.

100 percent it's all Sam from here, and he will continue doing what he'd started and moving in the direction he's shown an inclination toward already.

But in 2021 Clarkson was a coach working with people he hired. He hired them to do what they did. If you're suggesting it was somehow flukey for him, you're ignoring a pretty massive body of work.

I strongly disagree on Nash and Newcombe sorry mate.

Nash was playing, horrifically, well I'm not too sure, a defensive forward role under Clarko? Right up until it was actually announced Sam would be taking over in 2022. Only then did we see him get a chance to replicate what he was doing, under Sam, at Box Hill.

As for Newcombe, I think plenty of posters with some inside knowledge have posted on how much Sam saw in this guy, at Box Hill. I'd argue Cousins would have still be getting games unless Sam pushed him hard.

In terms of our 'talented back six', you do realise all of Day, Impey, Jiath and Grainger-Barras were missing when we started winning games yeah? The change was a focus on the contest, which has historically not been our one wood under Clarko, but very much looks like it will be critical under Sam.

I love Clarko mate, will always. But it wasn't working anymore.

 

[Brishawk]

I'm not quite sure what the point of this argument is

to me it seems you're having completely different discussions over different points. I'm not sure anyone is actually disagreeing with anyone haha

All I can get out of him is that if I disagree with him I don’t understand the context

 

[CHUBBSS]

Brocky is


I strongly disagree on Nash and Newcombe sorry mate.

Nash was playing, horrifically, a, well I'm not too sure, but I think it was a defensive forward role in the AFL under Clarko. Right up until it was actually announced Sam would be taking over in 2022. Only then did we see him get a chance to replicate what he was doing, under Sam, at Box Hill.

As for Newcombe, I think plenty of posters with some inside knowledge have posted on how much Sam sees in this guy. I'd argue Cousins would have still be getting games unless Sam pushed him hard.

And that was my biggest issue with Clarkos coaching for weeks on end, not the game coaching but team selection and his stubbornness to play the old guard over new and developing players, but that’s also what made him such a great coach, so was it a lack of perspective? Maybe.

the Downie decision to play a first year as the sub in game 1 and then not let him back it up and drop him the next week is the worst call of the season.

Personally think it started when we brought patton over

 

[Judd2Sewell]

And I fundamentally disagree.

Anyway, whatever, there’s no point in getting worked up about what will happen in the future. We will see it with our own eyes. I actually hope that you are right and it is just a flick of the switch coaching change that unlocks a finals playing team.

But I’ve watched a lot of footy and know a lot of people in footy and I think we’ve looked and played this past year exactly like a rebuilding team. About as I tipped we would have at the start of the year. We shall see.

(Not necessarily responding to this specific post, but to your discussion with flinchfree)

I also went to a few pre-season training sessions and there was not an emphasis on fast ball movement. At least not in the way we want.

Throughout the season we saw players like Bramble, Impey and CJ take the game on. Now I don't think we'd have seen that is Clarko was actively trying to stifle fast movement, and running through the middle trying to deliver to a forward was a drill that I saw them do at training. But I would be willing to bet everything I own that every single team runs that specific drill at training.

Those individual plays seem to have been in stark contrast to the more methodical ball movement we have employed over the last few years. There's no denying that were being coached to play a certain way, we have played that way for years now up until the last few weeks of the season.

 

[Brishawk]

For anyone who hasn’t paid attention to the vfl season and why there isn’t much to gain from an examination of the game plan at that level…

a glance at this ladder should tell you what a complete trash pile this competition has become. The first five teams on the ladder have a percentage over 160!

I have marked the box hill wins in green and the losses in red.

Only one of the victories came against a team with a percentage above 100, and Carlton were terrible that day.

as for the rest, we scored five wins against teams with percentages lower than 80%. Teams with percentages that low are not capable of applying sustained pressure so they can’t possibly provide any sort of test to see if what you are doing will stand up under pressure at vfl level, let alone AFL level.

 

[Crankyhawk]

personnel played a big part in our midfield woes, but its not the only reason we were so poor in the area. you simply have to look at coaching as being part of the problem on some level

Brishawk has in fact shown a number of video demonstrations where our stoppage structures have been dreadful with players getting sucked into the contest, setting up on the wrong side of the ball defensively/offensively, and not spreading properly in a 50/50 contest

From lurking on other team boards after they lose, seems a common complaint is how players get sucked into a contest, which leads me to think its not game plan but the footballers instinct to get in and influence, particularly when a side is struggling

 

[Crankyhawk]

For anyone who hasn’t paid attention to the vfl season and why there isn’t much to gain from an examination of the game plan at that level…

a glance at this ladder should tell you what a complete trash pile this competition has become. The first five teams on the ladder have a percentage over 160!

I have marked the box hill wins in green and the losses in red.

Only one of the victories came against a team with a percentage above 100, and Carlton were terrible that day.

as for the rest, we scored five wins against teams with percentages lower than 80%. Teams with percentages that low are not capable of applying sustained pressure so they can’t possibly provide any sort of test to see if what you are doing will stand up under pressure at vfl level, let alone AFL level.

View attachment 1239522

we got the dream draw in the vfl it seems
agree with your point that it is hard to equate vfl form to afl form

 

[The Spirit of Cricket]

From lurking on other team boards after they lose, seems a common complaint is how players get sucked into a contest, which leads me to think its not game plan but the footballers instinct to get in and influence, particularly when a side is struggling

agreed, but the frequency of which suggested (at least to me) that the instruction NOT to do so or when its your turn to go/to spread etc. was not drilled well enough by the coaching

could just be down to personnel though

 

[TheFourPillars]

(Not necessarily responding to this specific post, but to your discussion with flinchfree)

I also went to a few pre-season training sessions and there was not an emphasis on fast ball movement. At least not in the way we want.

Throughout the season we saw players like Bramble, Impey and CJ take the game on. Now I don't think we'd have seen that is Clarko was actively trying to stifle fast movement, and running through the middle trying to deliver to a forward was a drill that I saw them do at training. But I would be willing to bet everything I own that every single team runs that specific drill at training.

Those individual plays seem to have been in stark contrast to the more methodical ball movement we have employed over the last few years. There's no denying that were being coached to play a certain way, we have played that way for years now up until the last few weeks of the season.

What were u expecting to see at training mate. They were doing drills handball drills and kicking drills trying to move the ball. Stoppage and clearance drills. The stuff we were really struggling with you know practicing to transition the ball our real weakness. How many times did we miss handballs and kicks especially early in the season. Its all irrelevant now. Mitchell did mention that he wasnt going to get rid of the whole game plan just tweek it. Most of the current hawthorn dna will be preserved.

 

[flinchfree]

For anyone who hasn’t paid attention to the vfl season and why there isn’t much to gain from an examination of the game plan at that level…

a glance at this ladder should tell you what a complete trash pile this competition has become. The first five teams on the ladder have a percentage over 160!

I have marked the box hill wins in green and the losses in red.

Only one of the victories came against a team with a percentage above 100, and Carlton were terrible that day.

as for the rest, we scored five wins against teams with percentages lower than 80%. Teams with percentages that low are not capable of applying sustained pressure so they can’t possibly provide any sort of test to see if what you are doing will stand up under pressure at vfl level, let alone AFL level.

View attachment 1239522

Well, damned incredible Bramble and Jai and Nash got a run in the first team at all then!
And why would Moore go down to the seconds and then be brought back??? I mean, whatever he was working on was against such lowly teams that it didn't mean squat right?
Surely their form at Box Hill meant zilch because of the crap VFL opposition, and surely it was a waste of time deciding that how they played against said opposition would translate at all into the big ole AFL.

But, crazily enough, the players brought in played in near identical fashion in the AFL environment as they did at VFL.
They didn't average 50 possessions each and kick a lazy six goals against the plodders, and then not find the footy on the biggest stage.

Good lord this place has gone loopy.

 

[Judd2Sewell]

What were u expecting to see at training mate. They were doing drills handball drills and kicking drills trying to move the ball. Stoppage and clearance drills. The stuff we were really struggling with you know practicing to transition the ball our real weakness. How many times did we miss handballs and kicks especially early in the season. Its all irrelevant now. Mitchell did mention that he wasnt going to get rid of the whole game plan just tweek it. Most of the current hawthorn dna will be preserved.

I think we will keep the defensive setups as we seem to be a solid team defensively. It's when we tried to move the ball forward, once we gained possession, that the slow movement issues arose.

Hopefully the changes come from players moving the ball quickly through the corridor, as opposed to slowly down the flanks. With a backline that should include at least three of Scrimshaw, Sicily, Impey, Hardwick and CJ we will have the players that can go on a tear or take the inboard kick through the corridor if it's there.

 

[toomanysquibs]

I strongly disagree on Nash and Newcombe sorry mate.
Nash was playing, horrifically, well I'm not too sure, a defensive forward role under Clarko? Right up until it was actually announced Sam would be taking over in 2022. Only then did we see him get a chance to replicate what he was doing, under Sam, at Box Hill.

As for Newcombe, I think plenty of posters with some inside knowledge have posted on how much Sam saw in this guy, at Box Hill. I'd argue Cousins would have still be getting games unless Sam pushed him hard.

In terms of our 'talented back six', you do realise all of Day, Impey, Jiath and Grainger-Barras were missing when we started winning games yeah? The change was a focus on the contest, which has historically not been our one wood under Clarko, but very much looks like it will be critical under Sam.

What exactly are you talking about?

There's so much nonsense here it's hard to know what to pick apart first.

Clarkson hired Sam to nurture and identify talent at Box Hill. Newcombe was asked to come to Box Hill by someone other than Sam.

Are you saying it's like a hierarchy, where only the guy at the level where the player plays can take credit? So should we all just be thanking the guy who asked him to come to Box Hill for a match?

And really on Nash? He would have been moved on if Clarkson didn't like him so much. Yes Sam found Nash's best position, but Sam was hired by Clarkson to do things like that. It was in his job title, like literally.

Did Clarkson not put Sam into that role, is this what you're saying? Or he did, but to not listen to him?

And DGB... seriously??? He didn't even debut till the back end of the season - rd 15. He played up until round 20. We drew rd 23. That's two wins he missed, and you somehow see this as vindication the back six didn't start to take over in games as well?

And who from 'our talented back six' are you saying from the side that won those games, wasn't talented? Are you saying we didn't start to rebound better after the bye across the field - Scrimshaw, Bramble, hell even O'Brien started to take over back there. Frost, Hardwick and Hartigan all lifted a cog or 3 as well.

To your point on the midfield lifting through Nash and Newcombe, which it did.. Newcombe only played in the same number of wins as Jiath did after the bye. DGB played in one less. But it was only the midfield, right....

But on that back six. Day and Jiath were in the back six after the bye, when Clarkson made defensive changes, and we started winning games. Day played 3 of his 5 games for the year after the bye. Jiath was there from Rd 13-18, and played in wins against Sydney and GWS. Day played in two of those as well.

The point you're missing above all though, is that part of being a good coach is identifying the best people to help you do it. Clarkson was an absolute guru at doing this, and you're suggesting that he had nothing to do with putting Sam at the coalface of talent development at Box Hill when his job title pretty much said that?

That's some seriously flawed, selective thinking.

 

[toomanysquibs]

Well, damned incredible Bramble and Jai and Nash got a run in the first team at all then!
And why would Moore go down to the seconds and then be brought back??? I mean, whatever he was working on was against such lowly teams that it didn't mean squat right?
Surely their form at Box Hill meant zilch because of the crap VFL opposition, and surely it was a waste of time deciding that how they played against said opposition would translate at all into the big ole AFL.But, crazily enough, the players brought in played in near identical fashion in the AFL environment as they did at VFL.
They didn't average 50 possessions each and kick a lazy six goals against the plodders, and then not find the footy on the biggest stage.
Good lord this place has gone loopy.

The only people who've gone loopy are the ones who don't realize a good coach hires assistants to help him make the team better.

They give their assistants a title - something like a talent development role, and trust them to do their job well.

Kind of like Clarkson did with Sam in 2021.

Do you seriously not realize this? Or do you somehow think it was a game of Clarkson vs. Sam all year, and Sam snuck a few players into the team without Clarkson knowing and made coaching calls during matches that Clarkson didn't hear?

 

[toomanysquibs]

Clarko was one game away from playing Nash into retirement. It was ridiculous in the end

And it would have been a monumental failure.

But fortunately Clarkson brought the right guy in, who made it happen as it should have. But he also persisted with him, long after people on here were screaming for his head on stick at delisting time.

You're often only as good as the people who work for you in most any job in the world. Footy is the same, you need good people around you. Sam is obviously pretty damn good at developing the players he sees something in.

 

[The Chad and I]

All credit and criticism during his tenure should go to Clarkson.
Now it's Sam's turn, so let's see what he's got.

 

[The hands of stone]

Im fascinated and cant wait to see what Sam does with the following

- our fleet of quality half backs and defenders . Who plays and who gets moved up further the ground. Cant wait to see what what he does
- mids , ditto the backline . Who plays and and who gets thrown into the rotation.

Basic stuff but I think we are going to see some moves and a suprise or two .

 

[burner1]

I’m still not sure moving Nash into middle was some smart calculated move by Sam or just a bit of dumb luck at BH where there’s a bit more flexibility (ie let’s chuck Nash in middle for a quarter as we are down a mid). If I recall he was playing as wing/hff for first half of bhh season.

 

[Brishawk]

Well, damned incredible Bramble and Jai and Nash got a run in the first team at all then!
And why would Moore go down to the seconds and then be brought back??? I mean, whatever he was working on was against such lowly teams that it didn't mean squat right?
Surely their form at Box Hill meant zilch because of the crap VFL opposition, and surely it was a waste of time deciding that how they played against said opposition would translate at all into the big ole AFL.

But, crazily enough, the players brought in played in near identical fashion in the AFL environment as they did at VFL.
They didn't average 50 possessions each and kick a lazy six goals against the plodders, and then not find the footy on the biggest stage.

Good lord this place has gone loopy.

Way off the mark, buddy.

 

[cs61]

I think we need to hit the draft, recruit well, back the future generation and implement a game plan that can beat anyone, not just be competitive against most on our day, or look good in the 2nd half of the year. I feel it isn't as simple as game plan in isolation, but drafting, trading, recruiting, development, and prioritising the longer term to become the team we need to be again seemed to be slightly opposed to each other, as there seemed to be more than half an eye on the now as well, and holding on to elements that had won us a threepete.

This is why I feel a change (no doubt it also a risk) was needed and Sam in the best place to keep the best of Clarko (loved the intercepting high up the ground later in the year), but also a new vision for what is needed. I remember Zac Dawson

Zac Dawson

Age

38

Ht

197cm

Wt

94kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

10.0

3star

K

3.4

1star

HB

6.6

4star

M

3.7

4star

T

1.5

3star

MG

34.4

1star

No current season stats available

D

8.0

2star

K

3.0

1star

HB

5.0

4star

M

1.8

2star

T

1.4

4star

being the symbol of an ultra focused youth policy even when he was getting smashed, it was about development and learning over wins. Joel Smith was (unluckily) moved on in 2008 when he was still playing good football because of the focus on youth and development. It makes me wonder why things seemed to have changed, and (just 1 example) why Downie wasn't played off the sub position more this year, and use that rule change as a way to give him a taste, given wing is an area we are crying out for depth and he had a good pre-season and looks the type we need. I understand his Box Bill form played a big part, but that one AFL game did him a world of good, so why not try to give him 6-7 given Philipps wasn't setting the world on fire? We did this with Brad Hill before he was physically ready to great effect, and I feel the Clarko of 2005 would have thrown him in the deep end more often. We could have prioritised youth, and if it meant shorter team pain we'd probably be picking up Callaghan in the draft this year as the downside.

Our recent business plan was premierships, so can't blame Clarko solely as the club put in writing and made public our want for (multiple) premierships in the pretty short term, but I don't think that was realistic. Our first 5250 plan was based on the drafting and situation of the club, where the latest one seemed just to be 'cause we're Hawthorn', rather than an astute look at the list to see where we were at and what was needed to get back to a side consistently able to make top 4. Clarkson has said how his loyalty to players he's brought over and the promises he made about the direction also played a part in his thinking; so it seemed a different Clarkson to the one who came over and stripped the club right down to be in a position to rebuild when he started. Scully and Patton would have been playing as well if not for external 'circumstances' causing a premature retirement, meaning more impact on development of some younger guys if they had been playing.

So with Mitchell I think a change was needed given the above, not because Clarko isn't brilliant or capable, but because I think we need Clarko of 2005 not the one who has loyalty and relationships to players we need to evolve on from and start a new era. Mitchell would understand as much as anyone how much our defensive pressure and structures won us flags in 2008, 2013, 2014, and 2015, but also how we had multiple avenues to score, and how our footskills made us impossible to defend against, and also the journey we went on to get there. I think that experience he had going through the journey for the whole duration (especially given his own personal one of needing to work to even get on a list), combined with his IQ and determination (and Clarko like ruthlessness to succeed) make him as good an option to takeover from Clarko that we could ask for, given how enormously difficult it is to move on from the greatest coach of all time.

 

[Brishawk]

I’m still not sure moving Nash into middle was some smart calculated move by Sam or just a bit of dumb luck at BH where there’s a bit more flexibility (ie let’s chuck Nash in middle for a quarter as we are down a mid). If I recall he was playing as wing/hff for first half of bhh season.

Might have been luck to try it out but Sam was good enough to recognise his potential to play midfield at AFL level.

 

[flinchfree]

Way off the mark, buddy.

Ah yes, the old 'buddy' dismissal.
Good one.

But tell me then what's way off?
You've said the VFL is crap - correct?. The way Box Hill plays cannot be judged positively because of crap opposition - correct?. We had players play well enough against crap opposition the coach thought they deserved a run in the first team - correct?. Those players did well upon introduction to the first team - correct?

Which of those is not like the other.
But of course, only you and and a few others you're aligned to can be correct, correct?

Mate, you're tiresome.
Took the effort like your squibber buddy to go to a thread that wanted to paint positive the idea of scoring more goals, and belabor the idea of the need for defense.....EVEN THOUGH IN THE TITLE IT SAYS EVERYONE LOVES A GOOD DEFENSE.

Freakin tiresome.

 

[flinchfree]

What exactly are you talking about?

There's so much nonsense here it's hard to know what to pick apart first.

Clarkson hired Sam to nurture and identify talent at Box Hill. Newcombe was asked to come to Box Hill by someone other than Sam.

Are you saying it's like a hierarchy, where only the guy at the level where the player plays can take credit? So should we all just be thanking the guy who asked him to come to Box Hill for a match?

And really on Nash? He would have been moved on if Clarkson didn't like him so much. Yes Sam found Nash's best position, but Sam was hired by Clarkson to do things like that. It was in his job title, like literally.

Did Clarkson not put Sam into that role, is this what you're saying? Or he did, but to not listen to him?

And DGB... seriously??? He didn't even debut till the back end of the season - rd 15. He played up until round 20. We drew rd 23. That's two wins he missed, and you somehow see this as vindication the back six didn't start to take over in games as well?

And who from 'our talented back six' are you saying from the side that won those games, wasn't talented? Are you saying we didn't start to rebound better after the bye across the field - Scrimshaw, Bramble, hell even O'Brien started to take over back there. Frost, Hardwick and Hartigan all lifted a cog or 3 as well.

To your point on the midfield lifting through Nash and Newcombe, which it did.. Newcombe only played in the same number of wins as Jiath did after the bye. DGB played in one less. But it was only the midfield, right....

But on that back six. Day and Jiath were in the back six after the bye, when Clarkson made defensive changes, and we started winning games. Day played 3 of his 5 games for the year after the bye. Jiath was there from Rd 13-18, and played in wins against Sydney and GWS. Day played in two of those as well.

The point you're missing above all though, is that part of being a good coach is identifying the best people to help you do it. Clarkson was an absolute guru at doing this, and you're suggesting that he had nothing to do with putting Sam at the coalface of talent development at Box Hill when his job title pretty much said that?

That's some seriously flawed, selective thinking.

Is it possible for someone to give credit to Sam, without you spending all day taking it as a backhander to Clarko?
When Clarko had us on a mighty mighty run like few in our history, did you not take notice of EVERYBODY and their dog endlessly praise Clarko?
Like, for everything he did, as though he did everything, when I'm sure there were family members and boot studders and who knows how many others that played a hand?

And now, that people haven't LOVED the last few years, is it OK for people to point to things they believe Sam has had positive influence to?

Like seriously, this place has become a defend Clarko in every thread even when someone simply points to where they believe a bright future might arise from.

It's ******* ridiculous.

 

[flinchfree]

Oh, and by the way.....

It's a SAM MITCHELL'S DIRECTION FOR THE CLUB thread!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[toomanysquibs]

Wow, nice gaslighting

Tell us about ‘our talented back six’ not contributing to wins in the back end if the season again.

Or maybe pivot to some new outrage you can manufacture, or more fact free analysis.

Is it possible for someone to give credit to Sam, without you spending all day taking it as a backhander to Clarko?
When Clarko had us on a mighty mighty run like few in our history, did you not take notice of EVERYBODY and their dog endlessly praise Clarko?
Like, for everything he did, as though he did everything, when I'm sure there were family members and boot studders and who knows how many others that played a hand?

And now, that people haven't LOVED the last few years, is it OK for people to point to things they believe Sam has had positive influence to?

Like seriously, this place has become a defend Clarko in every thread even when someone simply points to where they believe a bright future might arise from.

It's ******* ridiculous.