Autopsy Hawks v tigers....blerrrrk

[Changa10]

Can’t believe that mongrel Nick V only received a fine for smashing Punky’s head into the turf well over the boundary line - makes me long for the days when Dipper and his band of merry men would dish out their own form of punishment

Katie Brennan (?) missed the AFLW GF for a tackle that was no where near as bad as this tackle on Punky. Perhaps they were right to question that the men are judged differently? Punky was clearly over the boundary, with arms pinned. Classic sling, and no need for it given Vlastuin had time to stop the tackle as he knew the play had gone over the boundary.

The Rance one I can live with a fine, but could easily have been assessed differently. Was late and he 'made him earn it' as we used to say. At least it wasn't a swinging arm, but anyone that tries to tell me he was attempting to spoil need to re-watch it. He is supposed to be the best backman we have seen since SOS, and he missed the ball by a good couple of feet.

 

[Argy]

2) The AFL has a conspiracy against Hawthorn. NONSENSE. They may have an agenda to strengthen their interstate expansion clubs but the AFL does not sit around and devise methods to specifically stop Hawthorn.

I agree that the AFL doesn't have a bias or an agenda against Hawthorn. But I don't think that is what many posters here are saying. I try to see both sides of a contest and possibly hold back my criticisms because I recognise I could be biased. But in recent times I've become aware that it some of the media, not the AFL, has a bias. Their commentary has influence.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

I agree that the AFL doesn't have a bias or an agenda against Hawthorn. But I don't think that is what many posters here are saying. I try to see both sides of a contest and possibly hold back my criticisms because I recognise I could be biased. But in recent times I've become aware that it some of the media, not the AFL, has a bias. Their commentary has influence.

We don't know whether their commentary has an influence or not. Certainly many are stating that Sicily was rubbed out due to "trial by media." In my opinion that is rubbish. He got a week because he deserved at the very least a week. I think many of us are blinkered because the victim was Joel Selwood. To those people I would ask, would you be happy to see your son or daughter do what Sicily did? And if you answered "yes," just put me on ignore because that response makes you a pretty ordinary human being.

 

[Changa10]

The 6 vs 10 day break theory is kind of blown away by our barnstorming finish.

Disagree, we were really flat early, and Tigers pressure and run left us flat footed. We played better when Richmond fatigued in the last, and stopped pressuring like they had when fresh in the first three quarters.

 

[Great 2008]

It wouldn't have had anything to do with it being a 30 degree day? Both sides were out on their feet.

Honestly, the bitching in here has now gotten to an unbearable level. Let me summarise some of the tripe I have read so far:

1) The 6 day break killed us. NONSENSE. We ran the game out fine. Both teams were tired.

2) The AFL has a conspiracy against Hawthorn. NONSENSE. They may have an agenda to strengthen their interstate expansion clubs but the AFL does not sit around and devise methods to specifically stop Hawthorn.

3) If Sicily plays we could have won. HIGHLY UNLIKELY. If Siciily plays we likely lose by either more or less than we lost by. Richmond had key players out as well, something pathetically overlooked by the bleating sheep.

4) If Rance played for Hawthorn he would have been suspended. NONSENSE. If one of our players did the same thing, we'd all be livid had that player been rubbed out.

5) The knee on Rioli was as bad as Sicily's on Selwood. NONSENSE. Yes, I can agree that Sicily was being held by Selwood but he viciously dropped his knee into Selwood's head. It deserved a suspension every day of the week. This applied whether he dropped his knee into Selwood or any other player. Sicily is a wonderful talent but he has some serious on-field white line fever issues. Left unharnessed these issues will cost him games on occasion.

The lack of humility in here is astonishing. We were beaten by a better side on the day and quite likely a better side than we are, full stop. Why can't we just acknowledge this and move on? The behaviour of some in this forum is disgraceful.

Don't disagree entirely.

Re point:

1. We looked flat early and it was hot. However, both teams kicking was deplorable. Richmond's run, handball, tackling and pressure was a bit better than ours. Watched the first half last night. Yet again we blazed away at goal. Hendo missed an easy shot straight up. Somebody hit the post. Cyril just blazed away and looked shot by half time. If we had taken our relatively straight forward chances we would have quite justifiably been level at half time. Without having watched the second half yet, I can guess if scores were level at half time the games outcome would be very interesting.
Bad kicking cost us a better looking win over the Cats as well.


2. Yes all clubs think they get the rough end of the pineapple. However, the umpiring we got v Geelong in the last quarter raises eyebrows. Also the fact we did not receive 1 free kick in our forward 50 against the Cats? These are not isolated occurrences which over time amount to people considering a greater agenda. Pick 19 for Buddy etc. #freekickhawthorn, the FIXture, unsociable Hawthorn tag, Bruest gets manhandled every single game and nothing. I think you may underestimate the desire of the AFL for each club to have a bite of the cherry which undermines a fair competition.

3. Agree re Sicily. If we are so reliant on one player we are in trouble. Richmonds outs were more significant than ours imo.

4. Re Rance a fine is about right. Was a 50 paid? If not puzzling. (have only watched the first half)

5. Sicily dropped his knee. It looked bad. He was always going to go. If Selwood had not had hold of him he would have got 4.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Ever thought the Tigers put the cue in the rack?

We were clearly out on our feet and I dare say if it had of been the other way around and it was us with the 10 day break and them with the 6 day break, the result would have been different.

No, it really wouldn't.

We were beaten by a better football team.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Don't disagree entirely.

Re point:

1. We looked flat early and it was hot. However, both teams kicking was deplorable. Richmond's run, handball, tackling and pressure was a bit better than ours. Watched the first half last night. Yet again we blazed away at goal. Hendo missed an easy shot straight up. Somebody hit the post. Cyril just blazed away and looked shot by half time. If we had taken our relatively straight forward chances we would have quite justifiably been level at half time. Bad kicking cost us a better looking win over the Cats as well.

2. Yes all clubs think they get the rough end of the pineapple. However, the umpiring we got v Geelong in the last quarter raises eyebrows. Also the fact we did not receive 1 free kick in our forward 50 against the Cats? These are not isolated occurrences which over time amount to people considering a greater agenda. Pick 19 for Buddy etc. #freekickhawthorn, the FIXture, unsociable Hawthorn tag, Bruest gets manhandled every single game and nothing. I think you may underestimate the desire of the AFL for each club to have a bite of the cherry which undermines a fair competition.

3. Agree re Sicily. If we are so reliant on one player we are in trouble. Richmonds outs were more significant than ours imo.

4. Re Rance a fine is about right. Was a 50 paid? If not puzzling. (have only watched the first half)

5. Sicily dropped his knee. It looked bad. He was always going to go. If Selwood had not had hold of him he would have got 4.



Without having watched the second half yet, I can guess if scores were level at half time the games outcome would be very interesting.

We did

A 50 was paid against Rance.

You cannot comment on our missed chances without commenting on theirs. They butchered their share of relative gimmes too, especially after half time. It goes both ways and bad kicking is bad football.

Also, there is nothing in any set of rules that says that frees have to be even or that frees have to be squared up so that both teams get that same free kicks inside their forward 50. The Cats got 8 more frees than us in that game but we got 8 more than the Tigers on Sunday. The AFL doesn't direct their umpires to be biased against Hawthorn. Perhaps the reason we get fewer forward 50 frees is that we have a smaller forward line, hence we don't get the arm-chopping, over the shoulder (Poppy excepted!) frees that taller forward lines get. Certainly I haven't seen too many that we haven't been awarded this year. Umpire bashing is mostly just sour grapes.

The result of Sunday's game was never in doubt. People are being blinded by the final margin. It was not a close game in general play. The Tigers should have won by 5-6 goals and it is a credit to our boys for playing the game out.

 

[TazHawk15]

No, it really wouldn't.

We were beaten by a better football team.

Yeah na.

It would make a difference and a potential big difference.

Even the Richmond captain said as much.

 

[LuckyHawk]

When Duryea was lining up to take that kick in I was screaming 'Why?' at the TV and then, true to form, he did this little lollypop kick that got cut off easily by Jack Riewoldt.

They showed scoring from turnovers and that was easily 80% of Richmond's scoring. Duryea mistakes contributed about 3ish goals from memory; he got caught with the ball once, turned it over up the guts another and that lollypop kick I mentioned before which was intercepted by Riewoldt.

Good reason to drop him for mine.

We really miss Birchall for the kick outs.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Yeah na.

It would make a difference and a potential big difference.

Even the Richmond captain said as much.

No, he did not. He said that it helps. He did not say that it won them the game. Cotchin at least showed some class in victory, which is more than I can say for plenty in this thread.

Also, I am not exactly sure how you can suggest that Richmond put the cue in the rack and then follow up by saying that the 6 days break cost us the game. This is contradictory. And Richmond are a better football team than us right now. Their 2017 Premiership says so, whether you like it or not.

Supporters who cannot be gracious in defeat really need to check themselves. It's all very well to rub everyone's faces in it when we are on top, but to make excuses for a loss is just shitty. Pathetic really.

 

[KermitJagger]

No, it really wouldn't.

We were beaten by a better football team.

We were beaten by a better team on the day sure, but per your previous comments I'm not sure their outs were really as important as our outs.

Prestia and Caddy are decent enough players but Caddy is slow, which would have likely worked for us in terms of Richmond's ability to transition the ball and Prestia has poor disposal which would have hurt them going the other way.

The outs we had were far more significant in terms of position, and what we had to do to replace those positions. Sicily would have been a better match up on the Richmond smalls and would have taken kick ins which were not handled so well by others, he intercepts better and generally kicks a lot better than Duryea who had to do more than he should. Burgoyne would have given us a lot more poise and again, better delivery going inside 50 where we looked impotent all day.

The addition of a Langford coming off injury and lacking match fitness, and bringing in an extra tall to play against an undersized forward line was where we fell down and where the game was won. We lost it at selection, plain and simple.

If Vlastuin was still out I'd give you that their outs were more significant and I believe if that were the case, we would have won. Vlastuin is a great player for Richmond and helps their defensive set up immensely.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

We were beaten by a better team on the day sure, but per your previous comments I'm not sure their outs were really as important as our outs.

Prestia and Caddy are decent enough players but Caddy is slow, which would have likely worked for us in terms of Richmond's ability to transition the ball and Prestia has poor disposal which would have hurt them going the other way.

The outs we had were far more significant in terms of position, and what we had to do to replace those positions. Sicily would have been a better match up on the Richmond smalls and would have taken kick ins which were not handled so well by others, he intercepts better and generally kicks a lot better than Duryea who had to do more than he should. Burgoyne would have given us a lot more poise and again, better delivery going inside 50 where we looked impotent all day.

The addition of a Langford coming off injury and lacking match fitness, and bringing in an extra tall to play against an undersized forward line was where we fell down and where the game was won. We lost it at selection, plain and simple.

If Vlastuin was still out I'd give you that their outs were more significant and I believe if that were the case, we would have won. Vlastuin is a great player for Richmond and helps their defensive set up immensely.

I never said that their outs were as important but I did suggest that you can't mention ours and not theirs. They were missing Caddy, Prestia and Rioli. We were missing Sicily and Burgoyne. What happens if all those players turn out is open to debate...but my overarching point is that there are a lot of excuses being made. Many of which are irrational.

 

[KermitJagger]

I never said that their outs were as important but I did suggest that you can't mention ours and not theirs. They were missing Caddy, Prestia and Rioli. We were missing Sicily and Burgoyne. What happens if all those players turn out is open to debate...but my overarching point is that there are a lot of excuses being made. Many of which are irrational.

Sicily, Burgoyne and Birchall if you were being fair. I agree that there has been a lot of excuses but I also feel that taking a loss to the reigning premiers as only negative is not a great way of looking at it.

 

[yeahmate]

One thing I don't understand looking at the game again is us having numbers behind the ball at centre clearances when we had such clearance dominance and then our mids bombing forward to an out number. Maybe we should look at playing a more conventional forward set up from centre clearances and then a half forward could drop back in general play to help out the backline as needed?

Otherwise we really need to work on turning centre clearance dominance into better forward entries. Instead of blazing forward to an opposition loose defender the mids should be looking sideways or backwards more as a first option, with more run off half back and the wing to charge through the centre and capitalise on the first hands McEvoy and the mids are getting in the middle. This is something we used to do really well in the three peat years, but is off at the moment.

 

[KermitJagger]

If we can fight to a 13 point loss to the reigning premiers with these outs and poor selections made at the match committee I'm pretty positive with where we're at.

I had us losing this game anyway.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Sicily, Burgoyne and Birchall if you were being fair. I agree that there has been a lot of excuses but I also feel that taking a loss to the reigning premiers as only negative is not a great way of looking at it.

Yep, forgot Birchall. And I think we actually did well not to let that blow out. The resolve within the group appears to be excellent.

 

[Thaihawk]

The contact was with the inside of his bicep with his fist near the ball , had it been his forearm I’d doubt it was only a fine , plus the medical report was clearly favourable unlike the week earlier where the crows Mackay made a miraculous recovery from concussion to play a week later with 21p

Why then would the AFL,Fox Footy, delete the slow mo replay of the incident? Simply because they want to hide something. I saw the original replay, and Breust had clearly brought the ball down below his shoulders before contact. WE don't doctor medical reports at Hawthorn.

 

[Bumps"N"Grins]

Wow thought I'd tripped over to the main board for a bit.
I've got a safe word if anyone wants to use it.

 

[flinchfree]

......

The result of Sunday's game was never in doubt. People are being blinded by the final margin. It was not a close game in general play. The Tigers should have won by 5-6 goals and it is a credit to our boys for playing the game out.

Can't agree.
You seem to weight the footy they played well but not when we played well.
Why is the last 20 minutes of total domination less significant than any 20 minute patch they had?
Because in your opinion they were stopping thinking they had it won? That would just be a guess. Just as likely we were simply far better than them when we played to our systems, hit some targets, got a little rub of the green and bounce of the ball, played desperate...
All those things are real, not simply because the RFC could have stopped us if they'd chosen to.
They spent their tickets early, we spent them late.
It was 14 pts, and I think your disappointment that we simply didn't overwhelm them has colored your outlook to disdain for what we DID do at various stages.

Not much between the sides. Our bottom few players stunk it up more than theirs, and that was it.

 

[flinchfree]

.......

Supporters who cannot be gracious in defeat really need to check themselves. It's all very well to rub everyone's faces in it when we are on top, but to make excuses for a loss is just shitty. Pathetic really.

I think most here believe we played sooooo far below our absolute best, and that Richmond played closer to theirs.
And the result was a couple goals plus.
Why do we have to fawn over the Tigers play and not believe in our own to do far better than that?

 

[Gralin]

Lets not eat our own

 

[thejockey]

Yep, forgot Birchall. And I think we actually did well not to let that blow out. The resolve within the group appears to be excellent.

Birchalls a huge out almost understated outside HFC , really miss him kicking out and composed setting up play

Hopefully he gets back and in form quickly , will give us great flexibility

 

[grumbleguts]

Yeah na.

It would make a difference and a potential big difference.

Even the Richmond captain said as much.

Agreed.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

One thing I don't understand looking at the game again is us having numbers behind the ball at centre clearances when we had such clearance dominance and then our mids bombing forward to an out number. Maybe we should look at playing a more conventional forward set up from centre clearances and then a half forward could drop back in general play to help out the backline as needed?

Otherwise we really need to work on turning centre clearance dominance into better forward entries. Instead of blazing forward to an opposition loose defender the mids should be looking sideways or backwards more as a first option, with more run off half back and the wing to charge through the centre and capitalise on the first hands McEvoy and the mids are getting in the middle. This is something we used to do really well in the three peat years, but is off at the moment.

I don't think Clarkson wants that style of play (quick clearance from congestion) to become a predominant play, as it changes the starting positions of the forwards, and doesn't enable his 'ideal' method of play.

So, although it looks great (clearances and contested possessions, lots of inside 50m) - he is not changing his forward structure to suit so it is ineffective, and our dominant onballers have to learn a different way of using the pill.

The hope being they combine better distribution with the current elite level of ball-winning.

Sammy was the same early on then became the "widest" onballer in the league, bringing in his team-mates and putting them into space constantly. Langford never developed passed the "get ball, run forward, kick long". At the moment, Tom is FAR more Langford than Sam stylewise (better at part one). We have to hope he is focusing on developing the width and spread, bringing in team-mates rather than booting long to the next contest. Keep in mind he's had years of this Swans style, and only 18 months of Hawks footy, already with massive improvement.

 

[Davo23]

The AFL’s idea was that the appointment of Michael Christian means that only one person was to make the decisions and therefore they would be more consistent.

It turns out to be true, as Christian’s decisions are consistently bad.

You couldn’t predict this.

In the news today, Michael Christian has apologised.

So it's all good.

.