I'm still haunted by lost chance: Gary Ablett

[randyzany]

You're a very defensive bunch of fans. I'll just leave you all to your own devices.

Good luck in 2009

And you're a very peculiar opposition fan. If I were in your position, the losing side figuring out what went wrong in the GF would be the last thing I'd want. But thanks for caring anyway, you're a cut above the average dawk fan. lol

 

[darren forssman]

I think they realised on the day where it all went wrong. Looking at the tape again months later won't change that. As Ablett said in the article

maybe, but the same things appeared in the nab cup...bad kicking for goal.

 

[winty]

maybe, but the same things appeared in the nab cup...bad kicking for goal.

This may be true, but I think our biggest problem in the grand final was our forward 50 entries, not our kicking for goal. Take out the 11 rushed behinds, and we kicked 11.12. Not flash, but not as bad as the actual 11.23 scoreline makes it look like.

I watched some of the replay this morning (I know, I'm a sucker for punishment), and there was one passage of play in the last quarter when Mooney took a mark 55m out, had SJ loose for a handball over the top just inside 50, but elected to bomb to a one-on-one contest at the top of the square. The Hawks managed to get a spoil, ran it down the ground, and scored at the other end. Just an isolated incident, but I'm sure if we were to sit through the entire game, there'd be at least 20 occasions during the game when we did something like that that we never would've in the preceding 24 weeks.

 

[darren forssman]

This may be true, but I think our biggest problem in the grand final was our forward 50 entries, not our kicking for goal. Take out the 11 rushed behinds, and we kicked 11.12. Not flash, but not as bad as the actual 11.23 scoreline makes it look like.

I watched some of the replay this morning (I know, I'm a sucker for punishment), and there was one passage of play in the last quarter when Mooney took a mark 55m out, had SJ loose for a handball over the top just inside 50, but elected to bomb to a one-on-one contest at the top of the square. The Hawks managed to get a spoil, ran it down the ground, and scored at the other end. Just an isolated incident, but I'm sure if we were to sit through the entire game, there'd be at least 20 occasions during the game when we did something like that that we never would've in the preceding 24 weeks.

or what about rooke's mark inside 50m and immediately plays on and handballs to lonergan...turnover.

there was still at least 5 possible goals, ottens running attempt, mooney's 2 misses, lonergan from the boundary (hard shot but still very gettable) and chappy missing a snap (he loves those).

and from early form it does not look like much will change this year.

 

[BIGANT]

or what about rooke's mark inside 50m and immediately plays on and handballs to lonergan...turnover.

there was still at least 5 possible goals, ottens running attempt, mooney's 2 misses, lonergan from the boundary (hard shot but still very gettable) and chappy missing a snap (he loves those).

and from early form it does not look like much will change this year.

Just a random thought tho; i think the inaccuracy in front of goal with our kpp's or running shots goes back too Gazza; to Gav Excell to our most recent history !? even when we've had huge win's i bet our behinds has been quite hight too

 

[ashs35]

Pretty good of Gary to come out and address it rather than just hope everyone forgets he got emotional. Good article.

Any Geelong supporters worried about this bit though?

"Straight after the game we spoke about what a great opportunity it had been to do something special, but that it had gone. Since then, though, we haven't felt the need to sit down and review the game."

Maybe I'm old fashioned but I would have thought losing an important game would result in minute by minute replays of working out what went wrong to avoid it happening in the future?

Anyway - good luck to you guys Friday night. Hope it's a ripping game.

Nah I'm not worried, I think by them not addressing it shows that they still have full confidence in their game plan, as It has won 43 out of the last 46 games or something like that, so I don't think they feel that it was the game plan that broke down, but rather the application of it, was what let them down, coupled with the fact that the Hawks are a very good team.

Bomber has also told them, to make sure they learn from it, so I think they're all pretty aware of what went wrong. But the loss in my opinion, as disappointing as it was, will only add to their resolve & make them an even stronger, more determined side. (I hope so anyway)

Good luck on Friday

 

[Cohzee]

Pretty good of Gary to come out and address it rather than just hope everyone forgets he got emotional. Good article.

Why would he hope that everyone forgets? Do you have an issue with blokes showing emotion?

 

[hbk_aus]

Why would he hope that everyone forgets? Do you have an issue with blokes showing emotion?

lol, why is everybody getting so defensive? Leather has actually made some good, complimentary comments in this thread as opposed to other Hawk fans who just troll...relax, I hope the players arent as tense as the fans!

 

[TheTimeCometh]

haunted coz the game did seem split kinda 50-50 for dominance - just not on the scoreboard. and as for brilliance, besides the tight pocket goal of mooney's, the cats were a lil lite on. no goals from 65, no one-step ping from 50 like dews or even a lance type set shot at 50+.

if the pies got a run-on in pre-gf it coulda been a similar story, 'cept the pies don't necessarily have that brlliance factor.

 

[RogerC]

Nah I'm not worried, I think by them not addressing it shows that they still have full confidence in their game plan, as It has won 43 out of the last 46 games or something like that, so I don't think they feel that it was the game plan that broke down, but rather the application of it, was what let them down, coupled with the fact that the Hawks are a very good team.

Yep. The game plan itself is a very good one, and obviously successful the vast majority of the time. It's good enough to beat almost any club all of the time, and the absolute top shelf clubs if they're not at their best - maybe even if they are. And Geelong don't even need to be at their best to apply it successfully - it's that good.

So I think the big question out of the GF for Geelong was: in that game, against that opponent, was the problem right strategy/bad application, or wrong strategy?

Hawthorn supporters see it differently, but I'm not so interested in that. I'd like to know the conclusion Geelong came to.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

I had a bit of respect for your postings, but in the off season youve turned into a ****........

You were badly mistaken, he is one of the worst posters on Bigfooty. Whether he's talking abotu his own team or someone else's, the kid is clueless.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Yep. The game plan itself is a very good one, and obviously successful the vast majority of the time. It's good enough to beat almost any club all of the time, and the absolute top shelf clubs if they're not at their best - maybe even if they are. And Geelong don't even need to be at their best to apply it successfully - it's that good.

So I think the big question out of the GF for Geelong was: in that game, against that opponent, was the problem right strategy/bad application, or wrong strategy?

Hawthorn supporters see it differently, but I'm not so interested in that. I'd like to know the conclusion Geelong came to.

It's a tricky one. I have had Hawthorn supporters tell me that the way they played on GF day wasn't really indicative of the season. I think Clarkson definitely tinkered and came up with something designed to beat Geelong's gameplan. What do you think?

This makes it difficult to answer your question however. It's a blessing and a curse, but I think the Geelong side are a little mental. I mean, when they're confident and on the march, they will belt teams from pillar to post, but when they're a little off it can be disastrous. A side of extremes, if you will. I think if they had capitalised on their 2nd quarter efforts they could have run away with the game, but they didn't and you could tell they got a bit down on themselves. That makes me lean more towards the right strategy/bad application option, which is of course the more comforting thought for Cats supporters

 

[Tay29]

It's a tricky one. I have had Hawthorn supporters tell me that the way they played on GF day wasn't really indicative of the season. I think Clarkson definitely tinkered and came up with something designed to beat Geelong's gameplan. What do you think?

This makes it difficult to answer your question however. It's a blessing and a curse, but I think the Geelong side are a little mental. I mean, when they're confident and on the march, they will belt teams from pillar to post, but when they're a little off it can be disastrous. A side of extremes, if you will. I think if they had capitalised on their 2nd quarter efforts they could have run away with the game, but they didn't and you could tell they got a bit down on themselves. That makes me lean more towards the right strategy/bad application option, which is of course the more comforting thought for Cats supporters

Nothing like scoreboard pressure to alter the dynamics and mental state of players. We've been over this before so many times since last September.

I can't comment much on Hawthorn because what I saw of them was largely on the tv for the finals but looking at the stats, they seemed to alter their game plan for the finals. For the H&A games they averaged 196.6 kicks and 176 handballs. For the final series the averages changed to 224.3 kicks and 147 handballs. That would probably indicate a more possession type of game as their marks increased by more than 20 over the H&A season. Their scoring shots stayed relatively the same but they were slightly more accurate.

 

[SJT76]

Nothing like scoreboard pressure to alter the dynamics and mental state of players. We've been over this before so many times since last September.

I can't comment much on Hawthorn because what I saw of them was largely on the tv for the finals but looking at the stats, they seemed to alter their game plan for the finals. For the H&A games they averaged 196.6 kicks and 176 handballs. For the final series the averages changed to 224.3 kicks and 147 handballs. That would probably indicate a more possession type of game as their marks increased by more than 20 over the H&A season. Their scoring shots stayed relatively the same but they were slightly more accurate.

Definitely different game plans. Even in the GF, the first quarter and third quarters were very different from us (not that I expect you to watch it to confirm this). We ran hard at you in the first, then lost some run (Young) through injury. We played high possession football for a while, then when we got some momentum, ran it hard again.

As for the increased accuracy, it had been a problem for us during the year, but we hit form at the right time.

 

[JUBJUB]

You were badly mistaken, he is one of the worst posters on Bigfooty. Whether he's talking abotu his own team or someone else's, the kid is clueless.

Surely there must've been another Mitchell Madness G2K9 was thinking about.The one who posted in this thread does and has ways done nothing but troll.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Surely there must've been another Mitchell Madness G2K9 was thinking about.The one who posted in this thread does and has ways done nothing but troll.

No it doesn't always troll, but it's always really really dumb.

 

[ashs35]

Yep. The game plan itself is a very good one, and obviously successful the vast majority of the time. It's good enough to beat almost any club all of the time, and the absolute top shelf clubs if they're not at their best - maybe even if they are. And Geelong don't even need to be at their best to apply it successfully - it's that good.

So I think the big question out of the GF for Geelong was: in that game, against that opponent, was the problem right strategy/bad application, or wrong strategy?

Hawthorn supporters see it differently, but I'm not so interested in that. I'd like to know the conclusion Geelong came to.

From what I've heard Bomber & Ablett say, & the conclusion I feel they've reached is that they weren't playing for each other as much as a team like they normally do, coupled with a little over confidence & also the depletion of moral as a result of eleven forward thrusts resulting in only rushed behinds. Under the new rule, eleven rushed behinds would now result in 11 more shots on goal. But I'm being biased : ) .. or am I ?

 

[RogerC]

It's a tricky one. I have had Hawthorn supporters tell me that the way they played on GF day wasn't really indicative of the season. I think Clarkson definitely tinkered and came up with something designed to beat Geelong's gameplan. What do you think?

I think that's probably the case. It looks to me as if Hawthorn used a similar strategy to something out of Judo - use your opponent's strengths against them. Geelong's midfield are supreme, and Hawthorn simply aren't going to beat them man-for-man. So the emphasis shifted from 'stop them getting the ball' to 'stop them using the ball effectively'. I lost count of the number of times someone like Ablett passed sideways or backwards because there was nothing in front of him to line up. He's no idiot, he knows what he's doing - so most often sideways or backwards was the best attacking option (if you know what I mean). That gave Hawthorn's back line time to set up to repel attacks. And generally the back line held its structure, which is in stark contrast to what Geelong forced opponents to do most of the year. How many games did you see where Geelong forwards ran riot, using all the space created because opposing backmen had been sucked up the ground?

I only just found out today (by watching the GF with an alternate commentary) that when Ottens got free in the second quarter and missed that goal, Hodge was off the ground. It was one of the rare occasions Geelong had space up forward. I daresay Hodge was managing the back line most of the match, and making sure nobody strayed too far from his position.

And whereas Geelong took a classy forward (Johnson) and put him in the middle, Hawthorn had taken a good midfielder in Hodge and sent him down back. I think Hawthorn realised they had a much better chance competing with Geelong forwards than Geelong midfielders.

This makes it difficult to answer your question however. It's a blessing and a curse, but I think the Geelong side are a little mental. I mean, when they're confident and on the march, they will belt teams from pillar to post, but when they're a little off it can be disastrous. A side of extremes, if you will. I think if they had capitalised on their 2nd quarter efforts they could have run away with the game, but they didn't and you could tell they got a bit down on themselves. That makes me lean more towards the right strategy/bad application option, which is of course the more comforting thought for Cats supporters

And you may well be right. Nevertheless, it might be worthwhile Geelong experimenting with alternative set-ups in 2009, especially in games where it's unlikely to cost the four points.

I'd consider giving Ablett's role to Selwood for a few games, and running Ablett off a half-back flank. I think Selwood's an absolute star, but I've heard a few people dismiss him on the basis that he's getting about the fourth best opposition opponent. So show him off a bit, let him dictate play, and tell Ablett to look for long options wherever possible.

There's no doubt that's a waste of Ablett's talent, but in a way that's the point. If a side works out how to use Ablett's skills against him, you'd want to know there's another way around it.

I suspect Geelong will use a very similar game plan to 2008 this year. But I personally would be a lot more frightened of them if I saw them experimenting with alternative strategies.

 

[darren forssman]

I only just found out today (by watching the GF with an alternate commentary) that when Ottens got free in the second quarter and missed that goal, Hodge was off the ground. It was one of the rare occasions Geelong had space up forward. I daresay Hodge was managing the back line most of the match, and making sure nobody strayed too far from his position.

hodge is a good player and all, but if he needs to be on the ground for your other defenders to realise they need to pick their opposition up you're in some trouble.

and i guess using this reasoning we lost the grand final as harley wasnt on the ground marshalling the troops telling them to pick their man up!!!

 

[Belisarius]

Excellent information that I am now nearly ready to digest.

You would think that someone at the Geelong club would have noted this. But when you have a game plan that wins 21 out of 22 games in a season (and Premiership form the previous year) it would be hard to change - even if the opposition was tinkering with their game style during the finals and winning well.

But I think we need to tinker ourselves - just in case we have another 'bad day'. We have enough good players to have a plan A, B and C.

 

[RogerC]

hodge is a good player and all, but if he needs to be on the ground for your other defenders to realise they need to pick their opposition up you're in some trouble.

and i guess using this reasoning we lost the grand final as harley wasnt on the ground marshalling the troops telling them to pick their man up!!!

Yeah, possibly. I may have over-stated that. It's just something I noticed. I'm not sure the back line need him as such, but there's no doubt that moving him back there has had a big effect on our defensive effectiveness. Up to Round 16, we had one of the leakiest defences in the league - ahead of about four clubs, IIRC. From that point to the end of the season, our defence was the most effective in the league - in terms of scoring shots conceded per inside 50.

And just from observation, he does tend to spend a lot of time shouting at teammates at telling them where to move, so I think that's a component of what he does.

Harley's loss mattered, definitely. I don't think a lot of attention has been paid to that.

 

[vinum coupe]

Yeah, possibly. I may have over-stated that. It's just something I noticed. I'm not sure the back line need him as such, but there's no doubt that moving him back there has had a big effect on our defensive effectiveness. Up to Round 16, we had one of the leakiest defences in the league - ahead of about four clubs, IIRC. From that point to the end of the season, our defence was the most effective in the league - in terms of scoring shots conceded per inside 50.

And just from observation, he does tend to spend a lot of time shouting at teammates at telling them where to move, so I think that's a component of what he does.

Harley's loss mattered, definitely. I don't think a lot of attention has been paid to that.

Hooray, a good hawks poster. Educate the rest of them please Roger

 

[darren forssman]

Yeah, possibly. I may have over-stated that. It's just something I noticed. I'm not sure the back line need him as such, but there's no doubt that moving him back there has had a big effect on our defensive effectiveness. Up to Round 16, we had one of the leakiest defences in the league - ahead of about four clubs, IIRC. From that point to the end of the season, our defence was the most effective in the league - in terms of scoring shots conceded per inside 50.

And just from observation, he does tend to spend a lot of time shouting at teammates at telling them where to move, so I think that's a component of what he does.

Harley's loss mattered, definitely. I don't think a lot of attention has been paid to that.

fair enough, in that ottens sequence there were 3 geelong players unopposed and i guess i was thinking he shouldnt need to be there to alert them to man up.