Autopsy Round 1, 2024: Hawks fail against Bombers

[HedgeFund]

Lots of time for our top 10 picks but would hope that at least one of them can be as good as jai , CMac or massimo. To me, those 3 look the best of the long term mids with Day and probably HH

Massimo will be delighted you’ve gone through his last 3 years (mainly as a VFL player) and ranked him up with Newcombe and ahead of Ward / McKenzie.

 

[Mercy Seat]

So who said Ward wasn’t good enough?
Who are these “people”?
It’s not what I’m reading on this forum.

The implication that’s been hinted at in this thread and others is that he’s not a worth first rounder. Ie:

Geez, Ward and Mackenzie look like vanilla first round picks.

I’m starting to get worried about Ward

 

[Mississippi]

I’m not concerned that Ward and mackenzie make it. The issue is being played out of position. Neither look like obvious dual position players ward is not a winger despite playing there and neither have the leg speed for wing or half back. As I’ve said in the list management thread, we have way too many non dual position mids and something will have to give. For now this year is that extra 15-20 games of development and more importantly clarity on who we take forward and who we move on hopefully to trade for missing pieces.

I agree with you. I think the extension of Hale's pre-season comments regarding Ward is that until he gets more of the ball and hurts the opposition (his words) he won't be played in the midfield - so perhaps a bit of catch 22 there.

By comparison, I don’t think Hustwaite will have to play 50 games before he's a core midfielder.

 

[Turly]

Parish, Stringer and Zerrett were three of their best players, alongside McGrath. He had 9 rebound 50's, 619m gained and racked up the touches, going at 85% efficiency too.

He was anything but a crab today.

Not joking when I say I barely noticed the crab and was genuinely shocked when I saw he had 33 touches.

Zerrett on the other hand…..

 

[tommyk72]

I know Duke had a poor day but his work rate was really impressive for mine. Covered the most amount of distance for us with 14.6 km. He keeps doing that and the possessions will flow.

That seems low for the top distance covered. I thought good games were 16+ kms, but maybe I’m misremembering. I had expected that with our touted running prowess we’d have numerous players up at that level.

 

[H00t]

That seems low for the top distance covered. I thought good games were 16+ kms, but maybe I’m misremembering. I had expected that with our touted running prowess we’d have numerous players up at that level.

16 kms are your absolutely elite runners. Only one player across the league reached that (Langdon).

It was a very hot day, round 1 and it wasn’t a game conducive to high numbers.

Same thing happened in the port-eagles game. Highest distance covered was only 13.7 km.

 

[lethalselbow]

If we'd had McKay, we'd have had the win.

Our backline needs a pillar to build around. Could Ethan Phillips be it? Would like to have him in the seniors soon

 

[Mitchell Madness]

I rewatched parts of the game.
The centre bounce set up is very weird.
Our mids are set up defensively (2 infront of the ruck, one behind). This means that if we win the hit out it results in our mids having to stop and turn.

The standard set up is the opposite way. 2 behind the ruck to run onto a hit out

Give we have see-ball get-ball players, it doesn't make sense to have that set up.

 

[Mississippi]

If we'd had McKay, we'd have had the win.

Our backline needs a pillar to build around. Could Ethan Phillips be it? Would like to have him in the seniors soon

Sadly, you hit the nail on the head.

 

[cryptor]

If we'd had McKay, we'd have had the win.

Our backline needs a pillar to build around. Could Ethan Phillips be it? Would like to have him in the seniors soon

Maybe. But kicking straighter at goal also would have, and a lot cheaper too.

Blanck being available would have also helped.

 

[Gut Runner]

I rewatched parts of the game.
The centre bounce set up is very weird.
Our mids are set up defensively (2 infront of the ruck, one behind). This means that if we win the hit out it results in our mids having to stop and turn.

The standard set up is the opposite way. 2 behind the ruck to run onto a hit out

Give we have see-ball get-ball players, it doesn't make sense to have that set up.

Totally agree, it looked very odd. Also, when we were getting spanked in there we didn't change it up and play on the defensive side.

Do the players not think to change or are they instructed to stick to plan no matter what

 

[Judd2Sewell]

If we'd had McKay, we'd have had the win.

Our backline needs a pillar to build around. Could Ethan Phillips be it? Would like to have him in the seniors soon

Yeah he would have made a big difference. Especially when you factor in he wouldn't have been playing for them. We threw big dollars at him for a reason.

Our KPD stocks, at best, are the second worst in the league. I'm not sure what we can do, but hopefully MM pulls a rabbit out of the hat at the end of the season.

 

[tommyk72]

16 kms are your absolutely elite runners. Only one player across the league reached that (Langdon).

It was a very hot day, round 1 and it wasn’t a game conducive to high numbers.

Same thing happened in the port-eagles game. Highest distance covered was only 13.7 km.

Thanks for setting me right

 

[DogDaySonny]

If we'd had McKay, we'd have had the win.

Our backline needs a pillar to build around. Could Ethan Phillips be it? Would like to have him in the seniors soon

You have a hard time making the argument that we lost that game on the back line rather than when the front line failed to capitalise on their abundant opportunities.

 

[lethalselbow]

You have a hard time making the argument that we lost that game on the back line rather than when the front line failed to capitalise on their abundant opportunities.

They got their goals easy. We got 'em wide and hard. Every time we scored a goal they got an easy (very easy) reply. Our backline needs attention.

 

[eldorado]

They got their goals easy. We got 'em wide and hard. Every time we scored a goal they got an easy (very easy) reply. Our backline needs attention.

Agree with all this, except the conclusion.

I challenge any defence to deal with repeated clear entry out of the middle.

The problem was in the middle at centre bounces, not the defence.

 

[DogDaySonny]

They got their goals easy. We got 'em wide and hard. Every time we scored a goal they got an easy (very easy) reply. Our backline needs attention.

It’s a mistaken belief to think they got goal kicks all centered and our attempts were way out wide. They made theirs, we didn’t. In fact, you can see they made them from wider and further than we did.

This game’s analysis is simple. We missed our shots when we had them. They made theirs. We did enough to win everywhere on the ground except for kicking for goal. Despite all the stats everywhere else that we would like to see improvement in, the one that cost us was kicking accuracy in front of goals.

 

[DogDaySonny]

View attachment 1933420

It’s a mistaken belief to think they got goal kicks all centered and our attempts were way out wide. They made theirs, we didn’t. In fact, you can see they made them from wider and further than we did.

This game’s analysis is simple. We missed our shots when we had them. They made theirs. We did enough to win everywhere on the ground except for kicking for goal. Despite all the stats everywhere else that we would like to see improvement in, the one that cost us was kicking accuracy in front of goals.

Could I put an added insight on this?

If we had made our kicks, we would have pounded them into the turf. A moral victory, for sure, but also true. If we get even moderately hot kicking for goal against the mid-table teams, our effort and production elsewhere will generate the opportunities we need to win. It’s still a little ways to go until our whole-of-field game can stand up against finalists, but against Essendon I think we saw we can stand up against the middle table teams. We just need to get hot feet in front of goal.

 

[DogDaySonny]

And one last point to put our defense into perspective. Essendon had 22 scoring shots from 51 entries. Just 43%. And seven of those scoring shots came in the last quarter. For the first three quarters they manage just 15 shots at goal, from under 40 entries. The backline denied them opportunity when they got inside 50, but Essendon capitalised on almost every single one shooting 12.3 through quarter time. Additionally, our midfield supplied about 25% more inside 50’s through three quarter time than they gave up.

This was a game of missed opportunities, pure and simple. Losing this game was a big disappointment, no doubt. But it’s a disappointment because we let the hard work and winning effort get away. Not because we suck and Essendon beat on us like red-headed step children.

Now against Melbourne we will have far greater challenges everywhere. Winning this game will require red hot shooting at goals, extreme midfield and backline hard work and a lot of luck. I’m up for it.

 

[burner1]

View attachment 1933420

It’s a mistaken belief to think they got goal kicks all centered and our attempts were way out wide. They made theirs, we didn’t. In fact, you can see they made them from wider and further than we did.

This game’s analysis is simple. We missed our shots when we had them. They made theirs. We did enough to win everywhere on the ground except for kicking for goal. Despite all the stats everywhere else that we would like to see improvement in, the one that cost us was kicking accuracy in front of goals.

What? The bombers look a bit more in the centre corridor and we missed a bunch out wide in the forward pocket - not sure if was a wind etc but no one could kick them from one spot on the ground (cluster of 5+ behinds from same spot). If anything the bombers shots more on the other side of ground to us (ie possibly the attacked from the easier side)

Last year we seemed to be more efficient than our opponents in our wins. Quality of inside 50s means a lot - hard to see in the basic inside 50 stats.

 

[DogDaySonny]

What? The bombers look a bit more in the centre corridor and we missed a bunch out wide in the forward pocket - not sure if was a wind etc but no one could kick them from one spot on the ground (cluster of 5+ behinds from same spot). If anything the bombers shots more on the other side of ground to us (ie possibly the attacked from the easier side)

Look at the charted shots at goal. They hit their shots for further out (they shot 6.3 from outside fifty, we shot 1.1) and they hit from the angles we missed. We both played in the same winds on the same ground. For three quarters of the game we had more behinds than they had scoring shots. There is no mystery here.

 

[Manila_Hawk]

Maybe everyone should watch a replay of the last quarter.

We were smashed. Pure and simple.

 

[ahhhhhh]

Maybe everyone should watch a replay of the last quarter.

We were smashed. Pure and simple.

Yeah I'm not really sure about the optimism out of this game. We were never a chance. I think the players knew it as well.

 

[AmericanHawk]

Maybe everyone should watch a replay of the last quarter.

We were smashed. Pure and simple.

I wouldn't say we were smashed, more had piss poor accuracy on our kicks. Not going to win a damn thing this season if don't improve that.

 

[Coathanger]

Bottom line is Finn as sub was a bonehead decision.
He plays, and Merrett doesn't get 31 touches & 8 marks,and the supply
into their forwards suffers.