Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More recently Hawthorn had an incredible losing rate when Sam Mitchell got less than 30 possesions. In the 2013 GF, Clarkson sacrificed him in a methodical and unconventional way for the greater good.
Clarkson and Mitchell talk about it in the doco on their win.You've bought into that fairytale too huh?
History is written by the winners and Hawthorn fans have somehow convinced people Mitchell getting tagged out of the game was actually a masterstroke of Clarkson genius to deliberately sacrifice his best midfielder to keep the dangerous Ryan Crowley out of the play.
Clarkson and Mitchell talk about it in the doco on their win.
Like I said history is written by the winners.
The entire aim of putting Crowley on Mitchell is to keep Mitchell out of the game, yet it's somehow a masterstroke that Clarkson 'deliberately' took him out of the game? It's not like Crowls was a McGovern-esqe marking rebounder that you want to keep the ball away from.
If our players hadn't choked in front of goal you can bet Hawthorn would never have claimed they deliberately took Mitchell out of the play.
I'll explain it to you.Like I said history is written by the winners.
The entire aim of putting Crowley on Mitchell is to keep Mitchell out of the game, yet it's somehow a masterstroke that Clarkson 'deliberately' took him out of the game? It's not like Crowls was a McGovern-esqe marking rebounder that you want to keep the ball away from.
If our players hadn't choked in front of goal you can bet Hawthorn would never have claimed they deliberately took Mitchell out of the play.
I'll explain it to you.
Mitchell is an excellent user of the ball.
His teammates try to get the ball to him as often as they can.
Knowing the best tagger in the comp would likely do a job on Mitchell, Hawthorn stop giving Mitchell the ball and use other players to distribute the ball.
Not saying I'm a believer or not ... but supposebly Mitchell's role around the stoppages also changed. His job became to fill the hole that we normally create for Fyfe, meaning there were now 2 players (1 of them from our team - Crowley) preventing our stoppage structure from working.Yeah, nah, I'm still not buying it.
Mitchell isn't Isaac Smith, he's not a damaging outside user whose effectiveness relies on teammates bringing him into the game. He's the #1 extractor who brings Smith, Hill, etc into the game. He's also their biggest midfield accumulator by a mile. You don't preemptively sacrifice that player as part of a 'master plan'.
Whether you buy it or not , only b.hill know the true behind it , and maybe hale.Yeah, nah, I'm still not buying it.
Mitchell isn't Isaac Smith, he's not a damaging outside user whose effectiveness relies on teammates bringing him into the game. He's the #1 extractor who brings Smith, Hill, etc into the game. He's also their biggest midfield accumulator by a mile. You don't preemptively sacrifice that player as part of a 'master plan'.
Not saying I'm a believer or not ... but supposebly Mitchell's role around the stoppages also changed. His job became to fill the hole that we normally create for Fyfe, meaning there were now 2 players (1 of them from our team - Crowley) preventing our stoppage structure from working.
This touches on Ross' inability/refusal to evolve with the game, by continually selecting players that can't kick the ball. It has burned us time and time again, everywhere from having guys like Spurr taking kickins, to 5+ years of atrocious accuracy in front of goals. His tacit acceptance isn't going to change. At some point he has to be held accountable for the lack of skill that his teams possess.Exactly, we kick straight to win and Clarko then gets criticised for not sending Mitchell to half back to break the tag.
That's why I refuse to fully believe it. But I do believe it to be foolish to dismiss the possibility of Mitchell playing more of a dummy role and filling holes around the ground that would otherwise be used to attack through on our behalf.Well then that's another piece of history that's been re-written, because (contrary to popular belief) Fyfe actually had a very good game (when I finally summoned the courage to watch the replay I was particularly impressed with his first half, other than his shots on goal) and Mundy had an absolutely storming second half out of the middle.
So if Hawthorn's plan was to sacrifice their best mid to stop our best mids it didn't work. They won that game purely because we shat ourselves in front of goal in difficult weather conditions on the big stage, it's as simple as that.
But in the end freo lostWe smashed them in the midfield, particularly Fyfe and Mundy. All part of Clarke's plan I'm sure
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
We smashed them in the midfield, particularly Fyfe and Mundy. All part of Clarke's plan I'm sure
Well then that's another piece of history that's been re-written, because (contrary to popular belief) Fyfe actually had a very good game (when I finally summoned the courage to watch the replay I was particularly impressed with his first half, other than his shots on goal) and Mundy had an absolutely storming second half out of the middle.
So if Hawthorn's plan was to sacrifice their best mid to stop our best mids it didn't work. They won that game purely because we shat ourselves in front of goal in difficult weather conditions on the big stage, it's as simple as that.
Depends on what you mean by sacrifice. If Lyon went into the GF with Fyfe at full forward and Pav at CHF, playing a 'Pagans Paddock ' style game, I think that most supporters would have been thrilled to see something new. Instead we got exactly what we knew we'd get. See the post above.Yeah you can't tell me any of the Lyon critics in here would be happy with him going into a grand final with the plan to sacrifice Fyfe in order to block up a bit of space and take some ball-butcher tagger out of the play, in the hope it turns out ok because the opposition s**t themselves in front of goal. It's preposterous historical revisionism.