Can Hawthorn succeed while ignoring the elite end of the draft? - Part 2

[Joao]

It doesn't take much mental effort to work out including rushed behinds in scoring shots and saying scoring shots were even is a stupid thing to do.

You had 3 rushed behinds to our 1. This means that if every behind you kicked was a goal, and every behind we kicked was a goal, we still win. Stupid theory ends here.

BTW the same is true in 2008. A lot of talk of Geelong's inaccuracy, but at the end of the day if both sides kick all their points as goals in that game, Hawthorn still win that one too.

After 2012 hawthorn put a lot of effort into improving their goal accuracy in pressure situations. We also had a game plan that tried to put a lot of pressure on opposition, which tended to produce inaccuracy for our opponents. So even if you were right about equal scoring shots, which you are not, you are basically saying, if Hawthorn were worse at two things they worked hard at being really good at - accuracy in front of goals and putting pressure on opposition forwards - you might have had a chance. The best you can take out of that game is that you held us to our worst grand final performance of the 3-peat. While you did look nervous in front of goals, I'd suggest we were fairly nervous too. Losing a GF as favourite and going into another a year later as favourite probably contributed to that. Our best grand finals from 2008-2015 were when we went in against highly rated opponents. Some people use that as a slight on the site "Often not even the best side of the year" is a common criticism, in my book, the mindset to come out and dismantled highly favoured opposition is one of the things that made that side great.

That's great, taking you at face value because I don't know if that is true or not (and is only true if we had 2 or less shots that missed completely anyway, which I am not sure it is) but either way its not a ****ing theory. It was a hypothetical. Something a few of you have a real hard time understanding.

FTR,

No Cookies | Herald Sun

No Cookies

www.heraldsun.com.au

The statisticians have come up with a scoreline after analysing both teams’ shots on goal: the Dockers by six points.

It could have been Fremantle 14.10 (94) def Hawthorn 13.10 (88).


Of course, the only scoreline that matters is already in the history books: Hawthorn 11.11 (77) def Fremantle 8.14 (62).

“Based on the AFL average across the shots that they had, Freo should have won,’’ Champion Data analyst Glenn Luff said.

“It felt like Hawthorn was in control for most of the game, but you look at the raw numbers and it was all pretty close.

“Hawthorn nailed them and Freo didn’t.’’

 

[juss]

Possibly. You're right, 2 poor games in a row with only 5 goals scored in each - one without your best player, and the other you didn't actually lose - isn't a big sample size. It is more about how those games unfolded. Seems your usual game plan had been thwarted. Perhaps just a side effect of having a high intensity game plan and the unusual circumstances leaving you underdone and so unable to execute. Obviously if it keeps happening as the season progresses, tigers fans will have more reason for concern.

We are in bad form, no doubt. Haven't seem to got things going yet, but let's review in a few weeks, by Saturday night this might not even be a concern if we can play well and get a win.

 

[Pessimistic]

That's great, taking you at face value because I don't know if that is true or not (and is only true if we had 2 or less shots that missed completely anyway, which I am not sure it is) but either way its not a ****ing theory. It was a hypothetical. Something a few of you have a real hard time understanding.

FTR,

No Cookies | Herald Sun

No Cookies

www.heraldsun.com.au

The statisticians have come up with a scoreline after analysing both teams’ shots on goal: the Dockers by six points.

It could have been Fremantle 14.10 (94) def Hawthorn 13.10 (88).


Of course, the only scoreline that matters is already in the history books: Hawthorn 11.11 (77) def Fremantle 8.14 (62).

“Based on the AFL average across the shots that they had, Freo should have won,’’ Champion Data analyst Glenn Luff said.

“It felt like Hawthorn was in control for most of the game, but you look at the raw numbers and it was all pretty close.

“Hawthorn nailed them and Freo didn’t.’’

‘very swirly weather and fre0 didn’t have any practise shots apparently #VICBIAS?

also the same opinionators now saying the game is screwed were front row cheering when ‘rossy’ was perverting the game with high pressure style

 

[HairyO]

Are you that insecure that a simple hypothetical challenges you? Don't worry, doesn't matter what anyone on here says they are not changing the record books.

It was 16 scoring shots to 16 scoring shots at 3qt and finished 22 to 22. I don't think it takes a lot of mental effort to imagine how the result could easily have been 5 goals different IF the goal kicking accuracy was different - which was the entire point I was making.

If you kicked straighter, 4 of those Out On The Fulls would have been Behinds and we still win.

If we kicked straighter, 4 of those Behinds would have been Goals and we still win.

 

[Bulldog Joe]

That's great, taking you at face value because I don't know if that is true or not (and is only true if we had 2 or less shots that missed completely anyway, which I am not sure it is) but either way its not a ****ing theory. It was a hypothetical. Something a few of you have a real hard time understanding.

FTR,

No Cookies | Herald Sun

No Cookies

www.heraldsun.com.au

The statisticians have come up with a scoreline after analysing both teams’ shots on goal: the Dockers by six points.

It could have been Fremantle 14.10 (94) def Hawthorn 13.10 (88).


Of course, the only scoreline that matters is already in the history books: Hawthorn 11.11 (77) def Fremantle 8.14 (62).

“Based on the AFL average across the shots that they had, Freo should have won,’’ Champion Data analyst Glenn Luff said.

“It felt like Hawthorn was in control for most of the game, but you look at the raw numbers and it was all pretty close.

“Hawthorn nailed them and Freo didn’t.’’

Hawthorn supporters seem a little touchy,but they also ignore the momentum in a game.

Fyfe had a couple of early chances that would have had a high likelihood of changing the complexion of the 2013 GF.

Even then Freo stayed right in the game and it is not hard to consider they could have been victorious.

 

[Spursfan]

We are in bad form, no doubt. Haven't seem to got things going yet, but let's review in a few weeks, by Saturday night this might not even be a concern if we can play well and get a win.

You guys just had a bad night at the office. Dusty has killed us the last 2-3 years. FWIW I thought you outplayed Collingwood for the last 2.5 qtrs but just couldn't put it on the scoreboard (admittedly their backline is very solid)

 

[Kanga Commando]

We are in bad form, no doubt. Haven't seem to got things going yet, but let's review in a few weeks, by Saturday night this might not even be a concern if we can play well and get a win.

You are correct. Every week, and another win or loss, and this thread takes on a whole new life of its own.

 

[matey]

That's great, taking you at face value because I don't know if that is true or not (and is only true if we had 2 or less shots that missed completely anyway, which I am not sure it is) but either way its not a ****ing theory. It was a hypothetical. Something a few of you have a real hard time understanding.

FTR,

No Cookies | Herald Sun

No Cookies

www.heraldsun.com.au

The statisticians have come up with a scoreline after analysing both teams’ shots on goal: the Dockers by six points.

It could have been Fremantle 14.10 (94) def Hawthorn 13.10 (88).


Of course, the only scoreline that matters is already in the history books: Hawthorn 11.11 (77) def Fremantle 8.14 (62).

“Based on the AFL average across the shots that they had, Freo should have won,’’ Champion Data analyst Glenn Luff said.

“It felt like Hawthorn was in control for most of the game, but you look at the raw numbers and it was all pretty close.

“Hawthorn nailed them and Freo didn’t.’’

Hawks seemed to have things in control. The Freo support was impressive on the day let me say. Sure there were one or two shots by Freo where I thought they may get back into it but hey if Freo kicked straight and hit the front it could have also sparked the Hawks to respond more strongly than it did for the remaining part of the game.

If’s mean absolutely nothing in sport!!!!!!

 

[hk89]

Champion Data analyst Glenn Luff said.

If that is what you are hanging your argument on, good luck with that. You had less ACTUAL scoring shots, but Glen Luff from Champion data said you should have won anyway because your missed shots were easier. In my book, that just makes you more shit. "An average team would have scored more from these shots". This confirms this was the weakest leg in our 3-peat. We played a below average team, and got over them by our smallest winning margin in the 3-peat. In any case, how can he expect Freo to score at average or better given how little practice their coach's game plan gave them at actually scoring? I'm not all surprised Freo performed below average in this metric on the day.

 

[Pessimistic]

They reckon freo could have scored better? The team which strangled and didn’t worry about goals so much? Seems to me they got what they deserved

 

[MinerBoy]

“It felt like Hawthorn was in control for most of the game, but you look at the raw numbers and it was all pretty close.

Firstly, you didn't frame it is a hypothetical so stop with that. You flat out called it "if we kick straight we win".

Secondly, the part I've bolded sums it up. It felt like Hawthorn were in control because they were. It was a pretty ordinary game all round to be honest, but not one the Hawks ever looked like losing.

 

[Joao]

Firstly, you didn't frame it is a hypothetical so stop with that. You flat out called it "if we kick straight we win".

Secondly, the part I've bolded sums it up. It felt like Hawthorn were in control because they were. It was a pretty ordinary game all round to be honest, but not one the Hawks ever looked like losing.

What about the word IF don't you understand?

 

[MinerBoy]

What about the word IF don't you understand?

WE WIN.

IF we had kicked straight WE WIN.

The 'if' you kicked straight isn't the key phrase. What part of this don't you understand?

I could say "if you kicked straight you may have been 3 goals at half time and not 1 and the Hawks might have taken the game on more and won by 6 goals".

At the end of the day, IF you had kicked straight you might have won, or been more competitive, or lost by more. However this game isn't really a text book example of a team kicking themselves out of a game.

 

[Joao]

WE WIN.

IF we had kicked straight WE WIN.

The 'if' you kicked straight isn't the key phrase. What part of this don't you understand?

I could say "if you kicked straight you may have been 3 goals at half time and not 1 and the Hawks might have taken the game on more and won by 6 goals".

At the end of the day, IF you had kicked straight you might have won, or been more competitive, or lost by more. However this game isn't really a text book example of a team kicking themselves out of a game.

If we kick 14.10, which statistically was likely, we win.

You're feelings are irrelevant.

You don't have to win by 12 goals. 1 point is enough and we had more than enough opportunities to do that and didn't. Hence the IF.

If you want to posit other hypotheticals, that's fine. But it has nothing to do with the one I posited.

 

[Pessimistic]

Like I said. Fyfe himself is on record as saying afterwards that he had no practice shots at goal when there was opportunity. Whether its circumstance, inexperience or bad coaching there it is. It was a terrible weather day with very swirly wind. I don't see how 'stats' can be applied even seven years later.

 

[Luv_our_club]

Hawthorn supporters seem a little touchy,but they also ignore the momentum in a game.

Fyfe had a couple of early chances that would have had a high likelihood of changing the complexion of the 2013 GF.

Even then Freo stayed right in the game and it is not hard to consider they could have been victorious.

The stats sheet says Hawthorn dominated every area of the GF in 2013. Normally you might lose some stats, but Hawks pretty much ran the board. Yet credit to Freo they didn't let us play well - it wasn't our best performance - and the stats didn't result in a big Hawthorn win. But as a very nervous spectator, i never felt the game was out of our control.

The year before, v Sydney in 2012, we dominated the stats sheet again and had long periods of dominance, arguably we played better than in 2013. We just couldn't kick straight for goal. Sydney took their chances and I was nervous all day.

That is part of what is great about grand finals. There is no point crying over the result. You win or you don't. In 2012 Syd won and deserved to win, despite the fact we stuffed it up.

 

[Back One Out]

I love how Richmond fans have even tried to make this facken thread about the Tigers

 

[Back One Out]

The Hawks won THREE SUCCESSIVE PREMIERSHIPS from 2013 to 2015 and this still wasn’t good enough for all the trolls on Big Footy

So how the hell do all you Hawks diehards think you’re going to win this argument? Even if by some miracle, the Hawks won this year’s flag, it still wouldn’t be enough. Any drop off the following year would be proof that the OP was correct and that Hawthorn ignoring the draft was a strategy destined for failure.

It’s bizarre beyond words that the same Hawk posters feel compelled to have the same circular discussion & debate with the same trolls.

Even if some of the discussion was on the level, what are Hawks fans hoping to gain by trying to convince others of our club’s progress on this main board thread? It’s Hawk Bored discussion.

These non-Hawk contributors are people who watch half a dozen of our games each year and barrack against us. What do they know? What do they care? They don’t rate us anyway, so they’re not all bent out of shape whenever we snag a win. They’re not reading your comeback posts and saying “Damn. You are right. You’ve convinced me.”

They just bump the thread & have a gloat whenever we lose. Haven’t you guys figured that out yet?

It’s nuts. Like some old homeless guy on the park bench muttering to himself and feeding the pigeons...

 

[Since 2001]

Can we make one of these for the cats?

Tuohy 30
Ablett 35
Taylor 33
Steven 30
Jenkins 31
Selwood 31
Henderson 30
Hawkins 31
Dangerfield 30
Blucavs 29

 

[hk89]

Can we make one of these for the cats?

Not until they've won 3 in a row. There are strict rules about how these troll threads operate.

 

[Scotland]

I love how Richmond fans have even tried to make this facken thread about the Tigers

It's just the latest iteration. For a good while it was about Essendon. Not really sure why considering they haven't had a successful strategy for 20 years.

Can Richmond succeed while Hawthorn are ignoring the elite end of the draft? - Part 2

 

[Scotland]

Can we make one of these for the cats?

Tuohy 30
Ablett 35
Taylor 33
Steven 30
Jenkins 31
Selwood 31
Henderson 30
Hawkins 31
Dangerfield 30
Blucavs 29

Do you want to be the Cats? 4-9 in finals since the 2011 flag. 0-4 in prelims and a straight sets in there. Great H&A record but can't seem to get it done in finals for whatever reason. Some pretty good names in that list still to replace.

Other than trading for Danger (gun), Henderson and Tuohy they've largely stuck to the draft. Haven't had any early picks (10 the best, Cockatoo who would be good if he ever played) and historically they burn their first rounders and draft well from 20 onward.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Do you want to be the Cats? 4-9 in finals since the 2011 flag. 0-4 in prelims and a straight sets in there. Great H&A record but can't seem to get it done in finals for whatever reason. Some pretty good names in that list still to replace.

Other than trading for Danger (gun), Henderson and Tuohy they've largely stuck to the draft. Haven't had any early picks (10 the best, Cockatoo who would be good if he ever played) and historically they burn their first rounders and draft well from 20 onward.

It's a great point Scotland. There's probably 15 other clubs would prefer Geelong's last decade of 'success'.

Where Geelong 2011 and Hawthorn 2015 have differed is that Hawthorn started the rejuvenation process with more mature talent (21-23) traded in, but whiffing on their Elite FA bids, whilst Geelong went to the draft (18yo), and used FA to pick up two elite players in Dangerfield and Ablett.

Geelong 2019 are now back to where Hawthorn was in 2015 - something of a last shot at glory. Hawthorn (Hale/Lake) changed course that year and started the rejuvenation, Geelong (Steven, Jenkins) are still chasing current success. For Geelong to still be in this position a decade after their last flag is actually pretty impressive. They are going to run this group to the line (then perhaps rebuild heavily or follow the Hawks 15-20 path).

For Geelong 2019, Ablett, Selwood, Hawkins and Dangerfield are all elite players, whilst Taylor and Tuohy are still A-graders. They (along with Stewart and Duncan) are the driving force of the club.

For Hawthorn 2019, Henderson was elite (AA-flash in pan?), whilst McEvoy is still A-grade (albeit playing in a different position now). The rest of their 30+ crew were all role players. They main players for Hawthorn (Worpel, Sicily, O'Meara, Hardwick, the return from injury of Mitchell) were all 25 or under.

Burgoyne	37​	1383​		Ablett	35​	2226​
Puopolo	32​	1404​		Taylor	33​	1653​
Henderson	31​	2086​		Selwood	31​	2036​
Frawley	31​	994​		Hawkins	31​	2043​
Smith	31​	1577​		Jenkins	31​
Stratton	31​	826​		Tuohy	30​	1330​
McEvoy	30​	1762​		Henderson	30​
				Steven	30​
				Dangerfield	30​	2752​
Total		10032​				12040​

Certainly SuperCoach has it's limitations, but as a broad-brush comparison it's reasonable overview.

 

[hawkman]

If we kick 14.10, which statistically was likely, we win.

You're feelings are irrelevant.

You don't have to win by 12 goals. 1 point is enough and we had more than enough opportunities to do that and didn't. Hence the IF.

If you want to posit other hypotheticals, that's fine. But it has nothing to do with the one I posited.

6 of those scoring shots came after the game was pretty much over.

 

[schmuttt]

Worst bit was you just knew they'd beat Richmond -__-