Game Plan Analysts and Sheep

[Blasé]

The confusing nature of the fluctuations of football form have created a new phase of footy analysts. No one can accept a loss with some fundamental reasons, but with the new access to countless bits of irrelevant stats, and commentators brainwashing new fashionable phrases such as 'flooding' and 'tempo footy', we have created a new legion of would be footy analysts.

What irritates me, is that they're right here on the Hawthorn forum, and they've only begun to churn up the bile, of utter bs, to reasoning why our form has suddenly gone off. I mean no one was analysing the team plan, or questioning it when we were winning. I actually said before the Adelaide game we could get thumped, because I have the decency of living in reality.

We lose => opposition have worked out our game plan
=> no other game plan
=> coach is to be questioned
=> soon? sack the coach

The game plan. Well at least some here have the decency to go to games, and watch the games on the tv, without being drunk. If you're just quoting what's written in the paper, then why recycle rubbish? However, what I've found even more annoying, is that there are so many sheep, than are just going on the popular idea written in the media, or another user here has come up with.

Basically, there's just no flexibility on the issue. It's just a matter of losing equating to bad game plan.

There are some simple facts that people can't get their head around.
Confidence in your own ability.
Confidence in your team mates ability.

Unlike so many here who seem so absorbed by only Hawthorn, I watched the Lions butcher the pies. They ran in waves and they played very direct, because they were confident in each other's disposal, and they were confident that Brennan was extraordinarily confident.

It just grows, and when you have your best cattle on the park, they're going to execute better, and begin the confidence growth.

Maybe if some people could collude and pull up something very rational and thorough as to what's the problem with the game plan.

 

[hawkslore]

The confusing nature of the fluctuations of football form have created a new phase of footy analysts. No one can accept a loss with some fundamental reasons, but with the new access to countless bits of irrelevant stats, and commentators brainwashing new fashionable phrases such as 'flooding' and 'tempo footy', we have created a new legion of would be footy analysts.

What irritates me, is that they're right here on the Hawthorn forum, and they've only begun to churn up the bile, of utter bs, to reasoning why our form has suddenly gone off. I mean no one was analysing the team plan, or questioning it when we were winning. I actually said before the Adelaide game we could get thumped, because I have the decency of living in reality.

We lose => opposition have worked out our game plan
=> no other game plan
=> coach is to be questioned
=> soon? sack the coach

The game plan. Well at least some here have the decency to go to games, and watch the games on the tv, without being drunk. If you're just quoting what's written in the paper, then why recycle rubbish? However, what I've found even more annoying, is that there are so many sheep, than are just going on the popular idea written in the media, or another user here has come up with.

Basically, there's just no flexibility on the issue. It's just a matter of losing equating to bad game plan.

There are some simple facts that people can't get their head around.
Confidence in your own ability.
Confidence in your team mates ability.

Unlike so many here who seem so absorbed by only Hawthorn, I watched the Lions butcher the pies. They ran in waves and they played very direct, because they were confident in each other's disposal, and they were confident that Brennan was extraordinarily confident.

It just grows, and when you have your best cattle on the park, they're going to execute better, and begin the confidence growth.

Maybe if some people could collude and pull up something very rational and thorough as to what's the problem with the game plan.

All we have to do is add two things to our game plan!!start kicking to contest as a second option!!have a lead up centre half forward as the link up player!!save the midfield from playing piggy in the middle until someone is free!!Maybe we could have the box reduced to THORPS TRIANGLE as in a way of creating a lead up centre half forward!!

 

[The Kipster]

Care Factor "Zero" for the hero....

 

[bigbol069]

We all want the same thing, success, but Blah-say this is not horse racing mate. Perhaps some of us should take our blinkers off and look at the big picture. Some of us who comment on game plans and such have seen and played a fair bit of footy, try about 1500 games in total, so perhaps our opinions deserve a little more respect. To be honest I would have thought that most people who have played a few years of footy at a decent standard would pick up that there are clear strategy issues at our club. The issue is far to complex to sit here and write about and explain to you the reasons why I have formed my opinion and you should know I for one have certainly not based my comments on anything I've heard or read because I am at the game assessing things for myself. You are of course entitled to your opinion, as I am mine, but then again I will not start a thread on what I believe is you being ignorant and foolhardy!

 

[Cosmo Kramer]

"Maybe if some people could collude and pull up something very rational and thorough as to what's the problem with the game plan."

Let me start by saying its a pretty good game plan, in as far as for the most part it leads to attractive football (mainly when we are winning) and it has won us more games in 2007 than most of us would have dreamed of at this stage of the year. Also let me say this style of football is very similar to the style used by Port Adelaide from 2002-2004. During that period for those who remember, Port always finished high on the ladder but couldn't make the GF, many journalists thought that the style simply could not win big finals, in 2004 it did succeed so Clarkos basic game plan aim can succeed its been proven.

Now our looses this year.
Brisbane
Bulldogs
Fremantle
Sydney
Adelaide
StKilda
Kangaroos

Now out of those the games that we lost but still retained our structure in some form or a generally watchable style of play were the Bulldogs, Fremantle and Adelaide games. The rest we lost for a variety of reasons, but because the opposition was better than us on the day, I am happy to admit that, what I'm not happy about with those 4 looses is the manner we lost in, I'm not talking about the margin or even the intensity but the style of play we played vs Brisbane, Sydney, StKilda and the Kangaroos.

So whats this supposed flaw in the game plan that no one has rationally or clearly identified to you. Well I will give it a crack at explaining how we go from being a good team to watch to being an excruiciating team to watch for own our supporters let alone neutral supporters who would struggle to watch 5 minutes of those 4 loosing games.

Now the most easily identifiable way these teams have beaten us is to first identify the strength of our game plan. For those who don't know the basic game plan is to generate run from half back. If there is a ruck contest we keep the space between the foward 50 and the ruck contest clear of our players and if we get a clearance we get burst players to run into space and run the ball through the centre until we get into a position to kick it to our 4 fowards "buddys box" that do diamond patterns in their leads.

So what is Hawthorns strength. Its winning the ball from a contest/ruck situation and then through handballs and kicks to run the ball with numbers to the wing or into our foward line. So those 4 teams have identified the way to beat a team that runs the ball with numbers from defence is to flood or congest the midfield. By doing this it means that our burst players become ineffective and we have to take extreme risks or switch the ball to overcome this midfield flood because our burst players can't run to space because there isn't any. This is why you see players like smith,guerra,birchall doing massive u-turns when they get the ball and backtracking and eventually being forced to kick the ball sideways/backwards (which is the ugly football I speak of).

Surely it isn't that simple it isn't. The one common denominator of these 4 teams is that they all play very good contested football. I don't have the stats to back this up but hawthorn would be bottom 4 in the league or even last for contested pocession. So if they can force Hawthorn to play their brand of football and force the contest they will go along way to winning.

So even if the Hawks beat the flood and get the ball to the foward 50 by the time they do Buddys Box is non-existant. The opposition and our fowards have flooded our foward 50. Which again forces us to go for miracle passes, or kick the ball backwards or sideways across the 50 and try to get a handball to a clinton young to have a shot from 50. Or even bomb it long, although that isn't the preffered option especially with the chances that the opposition ruckman is in front of buddy,roughy,croady,boyler.

Also those 4 teams have also forced the hawks wide. They haven't allowed us to use the corridor and instead take the longest route to goal which is via the wings. So if we are forced wide opposition teams know not to allow us back into the corridor. One of our best KPI(Key Performance Indicators)is when we are able to handpass inboard to a running player rather than handpassing to a man backwards(often under pressure) or wide. So teams have stopped the handball inboard because they know that is our first and only real option because we want to avoid kicking to a contest at all times.

So whats wrong with the game plan
-Everything above
-It doesn't have much flexibility, it relies on certain players to have good games and find space.
-It is still 1-2 years away from actually working. The longer term aim is to have a key foward, sure buddy has emerged, but it relies on key key bookends and possibly even to have a lead up chf to be able to play an effective style of contested footy when required.

So thats how you beat the Hawks, other teams know the gaps in the game plan. How you fix, well there are 100 different theories, thats up to the coaching staff. One thing is for certain though when these flaws in the gameplan (how it can be beaten) when these are exploited they are really exploited and for the most part the players and the coaching staff don't have the answers/solutions to counteract or adapt to a contested style of football.

 

[hawk3R_4lyfe]

Baaaa....baaaa.

happy?

 

[The Kipster]

Hawkfan15, spot on....

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

It was so much easier in the old days.... Ayresy, you move from the back pocket to the centre - Rat, at the first contest, run at the ball and watch out for Dermie - Medics, Derm's going to flatten Johnny's tag, so better get out there soon afterwards to make sure the kid doesn't die.

 

[Boogoos]

Good read Hawkfan15,
I got a comment to put out there though, why it must be in our game plan, do we always persist in our midfield players to just bomb the ball into our forward line just hoping for a contested mark? Kicking to leads has always worked for every team. Personally I believe that is why our players like Sam Mitchell are so vital due to always seeming to look for an option rather then the long bomb. I know the long option worked against teams like Carlton but they are dismal and very under done. A team with good defenders always seem to stop that with ease. We do it so often with little success and the ball just comes so quickly back out of our 50. Maybe it's a Clarkson development process for contested marks? To tell the midfield to just bomb it deep into the 50? It's probably my main frustration to watching the hawks. Or maybe our forwards are lazy and don't move. Games we play well and win are usually when we kick to moving options up forward.

What do you think?

 

[Cosmo Kramer]

Good read Hawkfan15,
I got a comment to put out there though, why it must be in our game plan, do we always persist in our midfield players to just bomb the ball into our forward line just hoping for a contested mark? Kicking to leads has always worked for every team. Personally I believe that is why our players like Sam Mitchell are so vital due to always seeming to look for an option rather then the long bomb. I know the long option worked against teams like Carlton but they are dismal and very under done. A team with good defenders always seem to stop that with ease. We do it so often with little success and the ball just comes so quickly back out of our 50. Maybe it's a Clarkson development process for contested marks? To tell the midfield to just bomb it deep into the 50? It's probably my main frustration to watching the hawks. Or maybe our forwards are lazy and don't move. Games we play well and win are usually when we kick to moving options up forward.

What do you think?

Firstly i'm not an advocate of the long bomb for our team. Sure it has its place in situations but not every time and you certainly don't kick long to 5 on 2 situations especially when your fowards relativley aren't very good below their feet (eg dixon and roughead vs someone like jason gram). I'm not sure how you beat the midfield flood, I mean I have some ideas but i'm sure most of them don't actually work in practise, thats a job for the coaching staff I guess. Our game plan is to hit leading fowards, although our game plan is a relative success I think one element that could be slightly tweaked is to add some flexibility to it and get fowards or a foward (BUDDY AND/OR BOYLER) to lead up the ground at times when necessary when the midfield is being flooded. This achieve a few things. It drags their opponent with them, it may also attract another opponent if they have a good distance on their oponent and someone else goes to cover for them, that helps undcongest the midfield area. Also it provides a target for midfielders to kick to and also to congregate around if it is to be a contest and have a focal point to be front and square of. It also drags players out of what may already be a congested foward line. The problem isn't kicking long, but taking so long to do so that when we do it is virtually impossible to get a foward one out with his opponent which I'm sure is the aim of the long bomb when it is used.

 

[Blasé]

"Maybe if some people could collude and pull up something very rational and thorough as to what's the problem with the game plan."

Let me start by saying its a pretty good game plan, in as far as for the most part it leads to attractive football (mainly when we are winning) and it has won us more games in 2007 than most of us would have dreamed of at this stage of the year. Also let me say this style of football is very similar to the style used by Port Adelaide from 2002-2004. During that period for those who remember, Port always finished high on the ladder but couldn't make the GF, many journalists thought that the style simply could not win big finals, in 2004 it did succeed so Clarkos basic game plan aim can succeed its been proven.
.
.
.
Surely it isn't that simple it isn't. The one common denominator of these 4 teams is that they all play very good contested football. I don't have the stats to back this up but hawthorn would be bottom 4 in the league or even last for contested pocession. So if they can force Hawthorn to play their brand of football and force the contest they will go along way to winning.
.
.
.
Also those 4 teams have also forced the hawks wide. They haven't allowed us to use the corridor and instead take the longest route to goal which is via the wings. So if we are forced wide opposition teams know not to allow us back into the corridor. One of our best KPI(Key Performance Indicators)is when we are able to handpass inboard to a running player rather than handpassing to a man backwards(often under pressure) or wide. So teams have stopped the handball inboard because they know that is our first and only real option because we want to avoid kicking to a contest at all times.

So whats wrong with the game plan
-Everything above
-It doesn't have much flexibility, it relies on certain players to have good games and find space.
-It is still 1-2 years away from actually working. The longer term aim is to have a key foward, sure buddy has emerged, but it relies on key key bookends and possibly even to have a lead up chf to be able to play an effective style of contested footy when required.

Good write-up HawkFan15. Thorough, and shows open-mindedness.

First up, I've underlined some areas I'd like to focus on, and also have shortened it overall.

Attractive football isn't my ideal, winning is. When we've won well, I've noted in the media and on the forums, that we've been more attractive. Sure, we do open up the play, but generally because we have the opposition's measure. What the major problem that this idea of 'attractive football', that by the way has only surfaced recently (likely by the media based on ratings), is that clubs have some sort of duty to play this unclearly defined football (I mean the WC sydney rivalry has blossomed only on the close results, not the amount of goals scored).
Most importantly, people continue to forget that we need to play to our strengths to beat the opposition (due to still being in a developing phase). We have no duty to play attractive football like Carlton and Richmond and get smashed by 100 pts + all the time, to entertain, when we'd prefer to give ourselves a chance of winning (something sydney's plan is based on).

Contested football should be the ultimate aim of any club IMO, and certainly from Clarko's spiel, it seems our ultimate goal. We are getting beaten in this area, and we need to improve. Personally, I've always valued inside players more than outsiders, yet I read on the forum all the time we need another outsider. Really, we need players that can contest the ball and also use it. Furthermore, the measure of a very good team IMO, is it's ability to man up one one one, rather than having to drop players back, or create a loose man. Against Sydney this was our definite failure, and gave us an opportune time to measure up. IMO, coaching staff will not forget this as to where players and dvelopment need to improve.

Handballing is very crucial, which you have come up with very impressively, however, I wasn't aware it was a KPI on stats sheet (I haven't seen it anywhere, could you direct me). When handball directed forwards, and to players moving forward, it is a great measure that the team is playing direct and confidently. Handballing backwards, appears to me to indicate indecision and lacking confidence.

As I mentioned before, we lack flexibility, due to being in a developing phase. I'm sure when buddy, rough, thorp and dowler have matured a bit, we'll have more flexibility.

Lastly, in your introduction, you mentioned that we'd be rapped where we are now, from where we have come from. You kind of contradict at the end, by saying that we need to wait 1-2 years till working. It just says to me that on one hand you think the game plan is vulnerable now, but will be right down the track. My sentiments exactly! We ain't got the cattle to mess with the mature teams, but we can still try to develop our game plan around the box, because our recruitment has been directed that way. One other last thing, our game plan look shite when our forward structure stinks (due to injuries and lack of depth).

Ultimately, what I've done above, is voiced my philosophy and values on winning football. I'm not really adept enough, nor are any of us here, of devising and strategising about the game plan (as yourself have said). Clarko has impressed me, and continues to, and I know where we are going, and can understand the results, despite being disappointed.

As for thetopic of this thread, it was done on the spur of the moment, and emotional frustration, and now I can see that it had little purpose afterall.

 

[cradle of filth]

very, very good post blase.

I'm completely with you on confidence being a massive factor in properly executing a game plan.

The media gets payed to hype up any situation they see fit. After beating Richmond i remember Robert Walls raving on about how we would be rite up there come September. Yet the week before when we lost to Adelaide he said we were easily 3 years away from making the top 4.

Now, i don't really think Robert Walls believed either of those opinions to the extremes that he portrayed on TV/Radio. The simple fact is that he will loose his job if he is too realistic about situations.

I don't think we will ever get a realistic approach from the media and this means that alot of

 

[Cosmo Kramer]

Good write-up HawkFan15. Thorough, and shows open-mindedness.

First up, I've underlined some areas I'd like to focus on, and also have shortened it overall.

Attractive football isn't my ideal, winning is. When we've won well, I've noted in the media and on the forums, that we've been more attractive. Sure, we do open up the play, but generally because we have the opposition's measure. What the major problem that this idea of 'attractive football', that by the way has only surfaced recently (likely by the media based on ratings), is that clubs have some sort of duty to play this unclearly defined football (I mean the WC sydney rivalry has blossomed only on the close results, not the amount of goals scored).
Most importantly, people continue to forget that we need to play to our strengths to beat the opposition (due to still being in a developing phase). We have no duty to play attractive football like Carlton and Richmond and get smashed by 100 pts + all the time, to entertain, when we'd prefer to give ourselves a chance of winning (something sydney's plan is based on).

Contested football should be the ultimate aim of any club IMO, and certainly from Clarko's spiel, it seems our ultimate goal. We are getting beaten in this area, and we need to improve. Personally, I've always valued inside players more than outsiders, yet I read on the forum all the time we need another outsider. Really, we need players that can contest the ball and also use it. Furthermore, the measure of a very good team IMO, is it's ability to man up one one one, rather than having to drop players back, or create a loose man. Against Sydney this was our definite failure, and gave us an opportune time to measure up. IMO, coaching staff will not forget this as to where players and dvelopment need to improve.

Handballing is very crucial, which you have come up with very impressively, however, I wasn't aware it was a KPI on stats sheet (I haven't seen it anywhere, could you direct me). When handball directed forwards, and to players moving forward, it is a great measure that the team is playing direct and confidently. Handballing backwards, appears to me to indicate indecision and lacking confidence.

As I mentioned before, we lack flexibility, due to being in a developing phase. I'm sure when buddy, rough, thorp and dowler have matured a bit, we'll have more flexibility.

Lastly, in your introduction, you mentioned that we'd be rapped where we are now, from where we have come from. You kind of contradict at the end, by saying that we need to wait 1-2 years till working. It just says to me that on one hand you think the game plan is vulnerable now, but will be right down the track. My sentiments exactly! We ain't got the cattle to mess with the mature teams, but we can still try to develop our game plan around the box, because our recruitment has been directed that way. One other last thing, our game plan look shite when our forward structure stinks (due to injuries and lack of depth).

Ultimately, what I've done above, is voiced my philosophy and values on winning football. I'm not really adept enough, nor are any of us here, of devising and strategising about the game plan (as yourself have said). Clarko has impressed me, and continues to, and I know where we are going, and can understand the results, despite being disappointed.

As for thetopic of this thread, it was done on the spur of the moment, and emotional frustration, and now I can see that it had little purpose afterall.

A very well considered and thought out thread. I will highlight the bits I'm going to respond to.

I think any coach wants to win at any cost wether it be 20 goals to 18 or 4 goals to 3 they don't really care. But the style of play goes beyond the coaching staff and the players it has a huge impact on your fan base/support and your marketing potential. For example the marketing potential of a dale thomas/lance franklin compared to shane obree/tim boyle. Now why i picked those 4 players is to illustrate a point. They are reasonably similar in talent (dont bag me here i'm talking relativley) but the difference they have in marketing is unbelievable. Its thomas and franklin they sell the memberships and get the number 13's and 23's on the backs of the young supporters. So if different players flashy vs honest toilers can have an impact potentially on marketing and support then equally or greater than that can be the style of the game plan of the entire team. If I came to Australia from Ireland I know which team I would follow out of West Coast and Syndey. In a way it is about winning at all costs but you can't attempt to win at all costs to the detriment of your fan base, see the disinchantment of stkilda fans earlier this season(even currently) although you win doesn't always mean your fans are satisfied. Take richmond vs adelaide last year (many fans weren't happen with the win at all costs because the game was so boooorrriiinnngggg). So as important as winning it is also important to try and play an attractive style to secure fans,memberships and tv/radio coverage.

The problem with your point in a sense that "when we'd prefer to give ourselves a chance of winning (something sydney's plan is based on).", now I'm going to use richmond vs adelaide again. Some richmond supporters didn't even enjoy the win, can you imagine the outrage if they lost. Maybe supporters are happier to win ugly than loose pretty but by playing this style all the time you run the risk of winning ugly and loosing ugly all the time. Also I believe when we play attractive footy we play our best footy. Maybe against sydney/stkilda/adelaide we need to play a bit differently, not ugly, a distinction needs to be made, you can play attractive contested football, but the saints vs hawthorn games this year and the last 2 hawks vs roos games (at aurora) have been beyond ugly. So the problem, we try to give ourselves a chance at winning (by sometimes playing sydney style game plan) but that isn't our strength at the moment. If we play uncontested footy against an accountable contested football team with a flooded midfield we will loose ugly and disinchant fans. Its ugly because we try to play uncontested footy in situations that require contested footy and when we do try to play contested footy we loose(sydney/adelaide(rather than contested they are more into zoning though) game).What am I getting at. Well I don't think we should play the Syndey style game plan because some people believe it may lead to success, our game plan is argueably more attractive and can be just as effective, maybe at times we do need to adjust though and not play sydney football but incorporate a plan B style of contested footy into our current game plan(that will avoid all this backwards chipping to no-one).

It is our ultimate goal to play contested footy and we have taken great steps in that regard this year. Although I do question if we will play traditional contested footy(like brisbane 01/02/03) but rather the style port adopted in 2004 when they played uncontested football(told it would never win finals) but were also good at the contest when it was required and could adapt to other teams styles and NEVER got sucked into playing a style they weren't natural with. I think thats clarkos goal, to play a style similar to port in 04. Uncontested(may be the wrong word) running the ball in waves with numbers really to central/key fowards by using hard midfielders along with outsider footballers to run the ball. The key to this is obviously having guys with great kicking efficiency as well as having key marking fowards that can compete or at least bring the ball to ground in 50/50 situations. Thats clarkos end game IMO.

It isn't a stat on the stats sheet, I like you have no clue how they would work it out. Its my own KPI really. What I mean is when I see Joel Smith running of the half back flank in the first 10 minutes I can generally tell if we will win or loose based on weather he chooses to handball wide to a bateman/brown or inboard to a hodge/birchall. We normally win when we are able to utilise the inboard handball rather than making hospital handballs/handballing backwards or handballing to a man in space (but pushing ourselves to one side of the ground rather than utilising the corridor).

Agree 100%. Apart from that the one other area we lack flexibility now and potentially in the future is the medium/crumbing foward. If you look at port adelaide (ebert/motlop/pearce/(other floating mids like burgoynes/cornes/krakeour)) or adelaide (burton/thompson/riccuito/welsh) vs hawthorn who has (dixon/osborne/hodge(sometimes)) I'm not sure we have particulary recruited for this area. Maybe long term we see little/muston/morton/birchall even to play this kind of role. But we clearly lack a crumbing foward but also the medium sized foward (dicko of 5 years ago), we should recruit a small aboriginal bloke this year to give us some flexibility (DON'T be scared off by memories of HARRY MILLER clarko).

I'm not sure where I contradict myself exactly although with posts this long i'm sure I do. I'm happy with the game plan. I believe it needs a fall back/flexibility. Maybe the flexibility will come naturally in 1-2 years time. But currently we do need to make our own flexibility, how?, again thats what AL gets paid for, but if we can't match it physically as you said with mature teams, when we try to play our style it breaks down bad and we still loose, then figure out a slight variation to the gameplan to overcome this or at least something that will give us a chance at winning. We may have lost by 60 points vs saints trying it, against loosing by 30 odd points or whatever we lost by playing ugly/SAFE football. But even when we were less than 20 points down vs the saints we didn't even look like winning with this style. We needed to take some chances, stop going backwards/ugly/safe and try something different/risky/potentially more attractive football.

Our depth is good I think. Although no club has the depth to cover the loss of top 10 players. Adelaide included. Nick Gill vs Ben Rutten/Trent Hentchel, Nick Gill would make any list, Adelaides depth is good but you can't replace the skills and quality of any top line players at any club, you can to an extent but you will get found out if you loose to many top liners no matter how good your depth is.

We all see where his trying to go with his game plan/list/type of players he is recruiting to some extent everyone sees this. Again as I have highlighted my critisiscm only lies with the rigidity of the game plan and the fact that when it breaks down it really breaks down and clarko appears to have no answers when teams work out how to beat us and it leads to us loosing but not just loosing but earth shattering ugly looses that would make Jason Dunstall bald if he still had hair.

I think it does have purpose because maybe it can highlight to others why possibly we do have losses like the one vs the roos and how we can/will change this as we go foward as a club. Plus its good to have well thought out and rational conversational on bigfooty rather than some of the truly meaningless threads of who is better foley vs stanton (I'm not sure how many people truly care about those threads) or threads that appear to cover the same topic 100 times (can willo fit into our foward line/are we too top heavy) or the stupid threads based on biased repetitive chatter.

 

[That's deliberate]

Hawk Fan good post

How do you beat sides that play , hard, accountable, football?

by being harder and more disciplined against them and by not been stubborn and persistent that your game plan 'predominantly no contest football' will prevail when it clearly doesn't

Football hasn't changed much - the team that wins the premiership is always the team that has the most discipline in playing hard contested football with abit of luck on the day.

You get to the premiership by winning 12-16 qualifying games and winning 2-3 finals.

You must have a good list to get through the qaulifying rounds to cover inevitable loss of players throughout the season. - we now have that, we have the cattle to atleast win 50% of our games now as opposed to maybe 20-30% in previous years - that is where our improvement has come, through organic growth of our playing list not game plan - Imagine what Lethal would be able to do with this list...something to think about

You win finals by having as close to your full list as possible and a Hard, disciplined , 'willing to go to contests' brand of football (see Sydney)- we'll go close to our full list this year but definately do not have the brand of footy to win finals.

Lets hope we adopt a more disciplined , accountable brand of footy this week against the Dons because if we do we will win easy - we have more talent on the park, if we dont we'll get mauled again and the game will be over at half time and Al will then address the players at three quarter time again and say you know what guys we'll play with buddy or roughy our of the square again , keep an open forward line and beat your man to the contest and run, chase and pressure when we dont have it .

We will then kick 5 or six goals in the last quarter like we have done in previous weeks and Al will come out and say it was a case of missed chances again.

Please...

 

[Cosmo Kramer]

Hawk Fan good post

How do you beat sides that play , hard, accountable, football?

by being harder and more disciplined against them and by not been stubborn and persistent that your game plan 'predominantly no contest football' will prevail when it clearly doesn't

Football hasn't changed much - the team that wins the premiership is always the team that has the most discipline in playing hard contested football with abit of luck on the day.

You get to the premiership by winning 12-16 qualifying games and winning 2-3 finals.

You must have a good list to get through the qaulifying rounds to cover inevitable loss of players throughout the season. - we now have that, we have the cattle to atleast win 50% of our games now as opposed to maybe 20-30% in previous years - that is where our improvement has come, through organic growth of our playing list not game plan - Imagine what Lethal would be able to do with this list...something to think about

You win finals by having as close to your full list as possible and a Hard, disciplined , 'willing to go to contests' brand of football (see Sydney)- we'll go close to our full list this year but definately do not have the brand of footy to win finals.

Lets hope we adopt a more disciplined , accountable brand of footy this week against the Dons because if we do we will win easy - we have more talent on the park, if we dont we'll get mauled again and the game will be over at half time and Al will then address the players at three quarter time again and say you know what guys we'll play with buddy or roughy our of the square again , keep an open forward line and beat your man to the contest and run, chase and pressure when we dont have it .

We will then kick 5 or six goals in the last quarter like we have done in previous weeks and Al will come out and say it was a case of missed chances again.

Please...

100% correct my only concern is that I believe we can't beat teams by playing accountable contested football. I take the sydney game as an example. We played their style and lost. Having said that though the game was sure alot prettier than the games vs brisbane/stkila/roos when we persisted with a predominantley game that was built around unconteted footy. The answer to how to beat sydney and the roos in particular, I think personally is to continue to play our current game plan with a few minor alterations (more contensted/flexible and accountable but not to the extent of falling into the trap of trying to beat these teams at their own game) and simply to go in hard at the footy. One of the main alterations would be to play accountable man on man football to not allow the oppostion to get the ball so easily out of there defensive 50 when we struggle to get it out of our own. Its easier said than done though. How many times do you see a team down by 5 points with 2 minutes left and the opposition kicks it backwards and sidewards to loose men, the obvious solution to this is for everyone to find a man and force them to kick to a contest (the players know this and so do the coaches) however you always see there are loose men and for whatever reason this approach rarely works, my point that maybe somethings are easier said than done. All I am really saying is that I would like to see Al be more pro-active than reactive to situations in which teams flood the midfield and we do more uturns than a lost cab driver trying to kick the ball to a uncontested situation.

 

[Laurie Bingham]

I must admit I have only skimmed some of the lengthy analysis on this topic but one thing that people must remember when they are discussing gameplans is that you have to coach to your team's strengths.

One basic fact remains - we do not have a lot of strong bodied players - this is a reason that we generally get smashed by the sides who are better at contested footy (e.g. Adelaide, Sydney).

I can name about six strong bodied players on our list at the moment. Croad, Campbell, Hodge, Mitchell, Crawford, Brown and that's about it. The vast majority of our list is young and we have a number of players over 21 who do not have big strong bodies (e.g. Ladson, Jacobs, Gilham).

We cannot play hard contested footy with the list the way it is at the moment. I am sure once the list matures Clarko will implement a different gameplan with more contested footy.

 

[Blasé]

I must admit I have only skimmed some of the lengthy analysis on this topic but one thing that people must remember when they are discussing gameplans is that you have to coach to your team's strengths.

One basic fact remains - we do not have a lot of strong bodied players - this is a reason that we generally get smashed by the sides who are better at contested footy (e.g. Adelaide, Sydney).

I can name about six strong bodied players on our list at the moment. Croad, Campbell, Hodge, Mitchell, Crawford, Brown and that's about it. The vast majority of our list is young and we have a number of players over 21 who do not have big strong bodies (e.g. Ladson, Jacobs, Gilham).

We cannot play hard contested footy with the list the way it is at the moment. I am sure once the list matures Clarko will implement a different gameplan with more contested footy.

I would add Sewell to the list, but right on my wave length that we haven't the cattle yet, and noticeable changes to the game plan will occur next year. For now we're trying to win games the best way we can. It is IMO, some degree fo impatience that if we get smashed, we're out of order. Just part of the progress.

Hawkfan15, still don't agree on attractive football. If we win a premiership such as Sydney have won, marketing and such will take care of itself and players aren't recruited in the draft based on the aestheitcs of the game. Sydney football has revolutionised football. Other teams are implementing their leadership programs, implement the same tempo football, even WC are doing it. Clarko looks at past successful teams to learn from, and Sydney just cannot be ignored.

Other thing about recruiting for a crumbing forward is risky, and besides I think Buddy fits that role enough, so that a youngster such as Muston could be an extra. Besides that, it's more icing on the cake, because it hasn't at all been the reason we've been losing IMO.

I agree there are similarities to Port, but we also must remember that while they were an outstanding regular season team, they only won 1 premiership, against a Brisbane team that had 1 day less rest before the game (consequently the reason why they overun them at the end).

Perhaps if we make the finals, and get smashed we'll be named the Clarko shakes?

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Our problem is (as many have noted) we are a developing side. We don't have the bodies (KP and midfield) to win playing 'old-fashioned' contested football - but we do have players capable of doing this, who are growing into their bodies/role. At the break we were at or near the top in relative contested possessions (us to our opponents on the day), despite being close to or dead last in absolute (overall raw figures)

We don't have players who can always hit-up long targets on the lead, but we do have players who are developing into these roles. Again, prior to the break we were top-4 in kicking efficiency, and I think #1 in long-kicks, and marks from long-kicks.

We do have players who can run and run and run and run - more so than many, perhaps even all teams. This is what the gameplan is based upon. When we are 'on' look how often we find an option with 5-10m in space, who takes the mark (running with the flight), and immediately plays on, running another 5-10 before kicking to the next player.

Our problem is regardless of where we start, even when playing 'our' brand of football, we always hit the 50-65m zone. We don't tend to go long from the wings (to target 40m out), we try and run to the 50-65, so we can go deep (getting easier shots), or run into the 50 for shots. That's why our 4 keys stay so deep. We want the area 40-60m as clear as possible.

Once the opposition worked this out, they realised that their 'zone' (flooding) doesn't need to be back inside 50m, they simply move it out to the 40-60m area. We aren't close enough to score, we're not big enough to break through, and we don't have the big bodies to contest relatively aimless long-bombs. In essence, we can't find a reliable scoring option - and rely on individual acts of brilliance to kick goals.

As all above have said, with our main players back in I feel it will 'click' for longer periods of time, and over the next season or so, I expect we will see our 'get out of jail' long-bomb become more effective, and our sideways/backwards 'GOOJ' disappear.

Not to overstate one player's worth, but when Hodge isn't needed anywhere, we are a premiership contender. That only happens when our midfield, forwardline and defence can all cope. When that happens, Hodge is able to 'structure' our delivery so much better, forcing players into the 'right' areas for the gameplan to work. There are others (Guerra/Ladson) who may have the skills, but lack the vision to create these options.

oh and btw, fantastic discussion...best i've read in a long while.

 

[Cosmo Kramer]

Our problem is (as many have noted) we are a developing side. We don't have the bodies (KP and midfield) to win playing 'old-fashioned' contested football - but we do have players capable of doing this, who are growing into their bodies/role. At the break we were at or near the top in relative contested possessions (us to our opponents on the day), despite being close to or dead last in absolute (overall raw figures)

We don't have players who can always hit-up long targets on the lead, but we do have players who are developing into these roles. Again, prior to the break we were top-4 in kicking efficiency, and I think #1 in long-kicks, and marks from long-kicks.

We do have players who can run and run and run and run - more so than many, perhaps even all teams. This is what the gameplan is based upon. When we are 'on' look how often we find an option with 5-10m in space, who takes the mark (running with the flight), and immediately plays on, running another 5-10 before kicking to the next player.

Our problem is regardless of where we start, even when playing 'our' brand of football, we always hit the 50-65m zone. We don't tend to go long from the wings (to target 40m out), we try and run to the 50-65, so we can go deep (getting easier shots), or run into the 50 for shots. That's why our 4 keys stay so deep. We want the area 40-60m as clear as possible.

Once the opposition worked this out, they realised that their 'zone' (flooding) doesn't need to be back inside 50m, they simply move it out to the 40-60m area. We aren't close enough to score, we're not big enough to break through, and we don't have the big bodies to contest relatively aimless long-bombs. In essence, we can't find a reliable scoring option - and rely on individual acts of brilliance to kick goals.

As all above have said, with our main players back in I feel it will 'click' for longer periods of time, and over the next season or so, I expect we will see our 'get out of jail' long-bomb become more effective, and our sideways/backwards 'GOOJ' disappear.

Not to overstate one player's worth, but when Hodge isn't needed anywhere, we are a premiership contender. That only happens when our midfield, forwardline and defence can all cope. When that happens, Hodge is able to 'structure' our delivery so much better, forcing players into the 'right' areas for the gameplan to work. There are others (Guerra/Ladson) who may have the skills, but lack the vision to create these options.

oh and btw, fantastic discussion...best i've read in a long while.

Unbelievably accurate statement. Too often Hodge is played in positions to fill/bridge gaps, although he is effective in these roles he is some sense wasted in playing as a loose defender. Sure he has the vision and the footy smarts to get people to run to where he wants and hit targets others can't see but he would also have these attributes and have a similar effectiveness in the midfield/foward. I think you know you are getting towards being a premiership team when we loose a key player to our setup and even then hodge doesn't have to fill the role left vaccant. For example the theory was last year that hodge was playing defence to cover for danny jacobs/croad and that one of his main roles was to impose himself on the contest but provide some experience and play a general style role in defence. When we will start to become a premiership team we will see that smith/jacobs(who are in a sense generals in defence) if they go down that hodge isn't needed in defence but rather that murphy and birchall for example can fill those roles in at least some effective capacity.