Autopsy Round 14, 2024 : Hawks skin Tigers

Remove this Banner Ad

People still bangin’ on and on and on about high tackles? Isn’t there more important things to discuss on this board?
Roddy

At 0-5, we were having Sam fired immediately, all of the players demoted to the Lilydale 3rds and the ground at Waverley Park ploughed and sown with coarse salt.

This is better...??
 

Talking Hawks 6 Points Podcast
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Annnd now to someone else I cannot unsee doing poor things.

CJ.

He clearly got some robust feedback during the week about his questionable desire to attack the ball or the contest culminating in him letting himself and the team down under the high ball with 3 mins left Vs GWS last week.

He got immediate harsh feedback from Weddle who had to run 20m to cover the GWS forward. That clearly was a focus of the Monday briefing and I'm sure CJ talked things through with Sam.

Main thing was - the players saw it, and a couple reacted on field.

This Genie doesn't go back in the bottle I'm afraid.

He's done it all career, head-ducked a couple of times prior to his injury - got feedback from opposition players both times as well.



Got injured - Out for a longtime and came back.

No criticism from me about him being tentative in the first 2 back from a year off.



But it wasn't getting better. He wasn't attacking the loose ball. Jumping into contests.Standing under the high ball.

Then last weeks very poor effort at the end.

So to Richmond on Saturday.

I was out of my seat.
Fist-pumping.
Shouting praise at CJ for those 2 huge contests in the opening quarter.
Crashed packs and marked.

The players knew. Hardwick ran 40m to pat his behind and talk quietly - praising him - so clearly the players / coaches had given CJ feedback - what a response!!


And then, apart from another tackle later on leading to a set shot for HTB, all that desire just seemed to drift away.

By the second half, he was back to avoiding contests - he actually ran around and ignored 2 contests in the second half rather than mark or spoil or just get involved.

Phoenix Spiceresque.

The stupid thing is - he averages 2 tackles a game. He can do it. He choses not to.

The players noticed.

I can tell you right now, 3 of our most committed back 6 all looked at CJ and then at each other when CJ just chose to not get involved and stand off the contests when we were under a Richmond attack.

I, and others I was sat with, saw it clear as day from my seat.

When players notice one of the guys aren't cracking in, it causes tension.

I have no idea what Sam can do - CJ can do it - he just decides when he wants to.

That won't work in this team.



Ward, Weddle, McKenzie and MacDonald all came under criticism from multiple posters for being soft at the contest last season.

MacDonalds carried on into the first couple of rounds of this one!

But they all decided to change - and they have.


Weddle went from shitting himself on a regular basis to being absolutely fearless. Crashes in. Flies backwards into a pack.

Does not take a short step. Incredible turnaround.


Ward and McKenzie both turned their respective corners when during a game they were in, they each at some point were faced with a choice.

Take the hit and the hurt but win the ball OR avoid the contest.

They both took the hit and have never looked back.

McKenzie takes some brutal hits every game, and doesn't break stride.



MacDonald is probably the best of the lot.

I don't think he even knew half forwards had to defend. He certainly didn't.

Man, credit where it is due, he has reinvented himself.

Tackling harder.

Hard at the ball and man.

His two way running yesterday was awesome. He learnt and adapted.

And that's the issue - CJ chooses not to.


CJ gets dropped Vs WCE for Finn (tag on Harley Reid) - has to be.

CJ has to win back the trust of the playing group. They've seen it, don't like it, made it known.

If he can't or won't, a fresh start for CJ elsewhere might be for the best, so he can start again.

This rascal stuff? This over-celebrating after goals and at the end?

He knows he's letting himself and the team down, hence the bravado.

Blokes like Dylan 'Cat' Stephens, Jeremy Sharpe, Zac Fisher are all known to be soft at the contest at times, but all found another club where, for some reason, they aren't pulled up.

This Hawthorn side that's building to be something special - this ain't one of those clubs.
If it hasn’t already been said, this is a whole lot of nothing and useless yapping.
 
Agree on Frost. Apart from missing through injury I can't ever recall a game when he has missed through being dropped. The perception of him on here versus the esteem he is held internally has been vastly different.

Also this season Worps seems to be playing alot slicker and with much more composure. He seems to be less fumbly and not going to ground as much. He is releasing players by hand much better and the dump kick has largely been put away. Really impressive season.
If you heard and saw the recent Moore video.

Worpel is in his opinion the best at the short 45 kicks and short kicks going inside 50, Amon was clearly rated as the best in general tho.

Worpel getting a mention as one of the best kicks shows his massive change from previous years, his work ethic and want to improve has been clear - he’s also 7th in the league for goal assists with 14 and averaging 1 a game.
 
There are many different ways of doing it. Some are disgraceful, some are acceptable.

1. Selwood - would angle his body almost horizontal if someone came in with a perfect-height tackle. If the tackler stopped dead Selwood would just fall on the ground. He was playing to create high contact. Additionally whenever he was tackled high his eyes went to the umpire immediately. He played in a gross way.

2. Puopolo - a combo of the Selwood style but also the "im short as hell and people need to take that into account when tackling. Puops almost never pleaded with the umpire. He got on with business and if a free wasn't called he'd still have his legs pumping. Acceptable.

3. Moore - goes head first a lot and creates a lot of high contact that wouldn't otherwise be. He's drawing the free. I don't realllly like it but also he just keeps going. Again, he's not looking to the umpire for a free, he keeps playing without flailing arms or deep eye gazing the umpire. he just knows that he's playing in a way that gives him

4. Watson - this guy is a midget. From a starting point - he is incredibly hard to tackle. He's strong and tiny and fast. So they have to use a lot of force to stop him, but also need to be very precise when tackling him. Of course he's going to draw a lot of free kicks. Also, when he does get tackled, cos he's charging through and they need to hold him back it's often a pretty dramatic head high situation. I am so fine with how Watson plays.
Those marking contests where he got taken high - I loved that. He went full charge and stretch for the mark and the opposiiton weren't expecting and didn't know how to defend it. He's found a new midget weapon.

5. Ginni - has learnt not to stop or react when taken high. He still plays in a way that take moderate contact and forces it high. Don't love it but don't hate it. Reckon he's learnt a lesson from his Collingwood time and it's more because he taunts the hell out of everyone. He's not super strong or fast, so this is part of his craft and i get it if he doesn't.

6. Weightman - what a ****ing disaster. This guy loves to make minor contact look like major contact. He'll take a glancing high touch and basically do a backflip while pleading to the umpire. This guy doesn't care if the opposition have just won the ball and are running away. This is the worst kind.

7. Breust - super humble. He puts his head in danger and gets free kicks and goals fairly often. The difference here is that he doesn't make a big deal of anything. Nobody has ever ever criticised Breust for playing in a way that creates free kicks - but he's done it as much as any other small forward. Would be interested in seeing career stats for high contact cos he gets a lot.
8. Papley - copy paste Weightman
 
You see what you want to see then.

Are we genuinely watching the same footage? He's almost at a 45 degree angle ffs.

View attachment 2022216
If you watch it closely, or not even that closely, he stays at that height the entire time. He doesn’t go above or below the height he’s tackled at, which is still obviously not like he’s fully standing up, but he doesn’t go even lower after picking the ball up and driving forward he’s already staying low the entire time. It’s a poor tackle, but also if he did go lower Vlaustin is more likely to miss the tackle over his head 😂
 
This is the table given by the AFL back in 2022:

View attachment 2022239

I agree with the last point. Way below his talent level, shouldn't be his instinct. At some point he'll be challenged for the action and we'll revisit this like with Ginnivan and then he won't get a high free (deserved or not) for 12 months.
He doesn’t drop, or duck “elects to drop head from higher position” - he maintained the same level the whole way. The initial tackle is above the shoulder and his height is the same the entire time. It’s annoying if you’re an opposition fan but it’s just a poor tackle.
 
Happened pretty quick, interesting that a second does not come off the clock as it says 9:34 through all screenshots.

Vlastuins mistake here is he lowers his body by bending his knees. When tackling these little blokes he needs to drop his shoulder, not his knees. It’s a pathetic tackling effort and the player with the footy was rightly rewarded for a poor tackle.

I get what you are trying to say, but tacklers need to aim at the hips, not the upper arm. Will give them a far better margin for error if/when players drop slightly into the tackle.

As others have said it’s a poor technique, but that’s what they are taught these days to pin arms instead of ensuring a legal tackle. It’s a risk they take with that approach.
The tackling technique is an interesting discussion.

For years it was hard, low at the hips. But players learnt to bring their arms up, riding the tackles and having their hands free releasing the ball.

Changes were made and the bicep/elbow area was the target, where you can lock the arms so a disposal cannot be done.

This obviously leads into a mix of the dangerous tackles with arms pinned leaving players vulnerable, apart of the new change - aswell as players Selwood, Puopolo, Papley, among others who shrugged tackles to break them which meant those tackles slipped high.

Ginnivan was the main one who took this to an extreme with Papley & Weightman also examples of not just shrugging but dropping the body entirely limp, almost guaranteed to be taken high, interpretation changes made and I’d say Ginnivan has made a significant change since.
Now the shrugs, ducks and drops aren’t paid unless contact initially is made high.

Players can still attract and pull free kicks but do so by playing hard and smart, as Watson did, maintaining height, not dropping, ducking or shrugging but being low and hard, which tests tackling techniques, especially being his short height.

The main thing now is the new phase of where you’re aiming to tackle, you can still go for the elbow for a lot of players. But just taking into consideration someone’s reputation, position at the time and their height generally.

The new phase for me is a mix of hips and elbow regions, attacking the wrists/forearm, inbetween the two, so it’s hard to shrug or duck but you’re still able to hold the arms and making disposing of it hard. This whilst going lower and harder at the man. The other key thing is to still focus on not slinging and to drive safely or rotate onto yourself.
 
Just an fyi

I love James Sicily
 
If we were playing a final next week I'd be dropping him for Morrison personally.

Although due to his popularity amongst the playing group you could argue they'd play better simply by having him run out alongside them.

Quoting my own post here.

I hasn't actually seen the first quarter of Saturday's game when I wrote it.

Upon doing so I felt like CJ was nearly our best player behind Scrimshaw.

Happy to put my hand up and say I got that one a bit wrong.
 
If you watch it closely, or not even that closely, he stays at that height the entire time. He doesn’t go above or below the height he’s tackled at, which is still obviously not like he’s fully standing up, but he doesn’t go even lower after picking the ball up and driving forward he’s already staying low the entire time. It’s a poor tackle, but also if he did go lower Vlaustin is more likely to miss the tackle over his head 😂

Everyone has watched it closely and it's only Hawthorn fans that are trying to defend it. Everyone else has acknowledged what it is. The last one especially is laughably bad. Everyone defending it would will be howling when the exact same thing is given against us.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Everyone has watched it closely and it's only Hawthorn fans that are trying to defend it. Everyone else has acknowledged what it is. The last one especially is laughably bad. Everyone defending it would will be howling when the exact same thing is given against us.

So "everyone else" is unbiased but Hawthorn supporters are biased? Perhaps "everyone else" is looking for any argument they can to illegitimise Hawthorn's surge these last seven weeks.
 
So "everyone else" is unbiased but Hawthorn supporters are biased? Perhaps "everyone else" is looking for any argument they can to illegitimise Hawthorn's surge these last seven weeks.
If ure not with us ure against us I couldn't give a stuff but opposition supporters and their cries of free kick hawthorn.

Edit: If ure crying about free kicks then unfortunately I am not listening. Best of the players from the past and continuing into the future will draw them
 
One thing I noticed about this game is how well we set up when they had possession in the last line. They could not work out where to kick and either chopped it about without gaining ground or kicked to a contest. This may also reflect some deficiencies in their defenders with ball in hand, but I reckon we did a very good job controlling the space. I sign of a well coached and well organised team.
This is the reason our form has sky rocketed. All the teams we have won against are having enormous difficulties moving the ball out of their defensive 50.
 
So "everyone else" is unbiased but Hawthorn supporters are biased? Perhaps "everyone else" is looking for any argument they can to illegitimise Hawthorn's surge these last seven weeks.

Which group is more likely to be biased in this specific situation: the Hawthorn fans defending it, or the vast majority of the footballing community?

As for your second sentence; dodgy free kicks in this one game somehow iligitimises our great form over the last several weeks? Just lol, literally no one is suggesting that, never mind even saying it outright.

I expect anyone defending what happened, especially Watson's second one with Vlastuin, which is one of the most obvious ones we will see all year, will have absolutely nothing to say when it inevitability happens against us.
 
These frees are a product of congested forward lines

Sometimes the rolling mall goes on for several minutes before the umpire finds a free kick

But we don’t get things like rushed behinds as much. Enjoy
 
Which group is more likely to be biased in this specific situation: the Hawthorn fans defending it, or the vast majority of the footballing community?

As for your second sentence; dodgy free kicks in this one game somehow iligitimises our great form over the last several weeks? Just lol, literally no one is suggesting that, never mind even saying it outright.

I expect anyone defending what happened, especially Watson's second one with Vlastuin, which is one of the most obvious ones we will see all year, will have absolutely nothing to say when it inevitability happens against us.

Which group is more likely to be biased? Apparently, the group you disagree with is the answer.

It is nearly impossible to believe that where we were just two months ago:


The AFL has conceded the umpires missed several free kicks for Hawthorn small forward Jack Ginnivan amid a renewed debate over his treatment during games.

Ginnivan was noticeably not awarded several penalties in Hawthorn’s six-goal loss to Geelong yesterday, with all decisions in question revolving around head-high contact on the 21-year-old.

The AFL admits they missed several head high tackles against Ginni that should have been called. They admit that Ginni played legally and the Cats played illegally. Ginni does not change his behaviour, knowing that it was legal, and now people are braying for his head to be removed again.

Small guys play close to the ground. Legitimately. And big guys have difficulty tackling them correctly. And this is the small guy's fault according to you. This debate is the most convoluted, bass-ackwards thing I can imagine.
 
So "everyone else" is unbiased but Hawthorn supporters are biased? Perhaps "everyone else" is looking for any argument they can to illegitimise Hawthorn's surge these last seven weeks.
My entire thesis in bringing it up initially was that he's too talented to even partially be drawing high free kicks, that he would eventually have it highlighted because the footy world at large would definitely consider it a drawn high free, and that would result in free kicks - even those 100% there because he is very short - not getting paid.

I respect the "well about time we get them" perspective because it's unashamed bias and self interest, accepting that it's a bit dodgy but if it's in our favour it's all cool - that's a natural fan thing to have. I'm a bit bemused by the flat out rejection that it's a drawn free kick, because to me it's obvious that drawing a free is the intention and it's going to be even more obvious to non-Hawks fans and people in the media.

I feel in both of those cases it's short sighted because the AFL has shown that they're extremely wary of any contact with potential impact to the head - that includes both the player tackling, and the player getting tackled. This means, just like with Ginnivan when he was at the pies, it will eventually result in a reputation and a loss of the benefit of the doubt with the umps. We're already two thirds of the way there with Talking Footy having highlighted it last night.

As a footy fan free kicks make footy less enjoyable, and it sucks that drawing a free is his instinct when the Wiz is good enough to do pretty much anything else.
 
My entire thesis in bringing it up initially was that he's too talented to even partially be drawing high free kicks, that he would eventually have it highlighted because the footy world at large would definitely consider it a drawn high free, and that would result in free kicks - even those 100% there because he is very short - not getting paid.

I respect the "well about time we get them" perspective because it's unashamed bias and self interest, accepting that it's a bit dodgy but if it's in our favour it's all cool - that's a natural fan thing to have. I'm a bit bemused by the flat out rejection that it's a drawn free kick, because to me it's obvious that drawing a free is the intention and it's going to be even more obvious to non-Hawks fans and people in the media.

I feel in both of those cases it's short sighted because the AFL has shown that they're extremely wary of any contact with potential impact to the head - that includes both the player tackling, and the player getting tackled. This means, just like with Ginnivan when he was at the pies, it will eventually result in a reputation and a loss of the benefit of the doubt with the umps. We're already two thirds of the way there with Talking Footy having highlighted it last night.

As a footy fan free kicks make footy less enjoyable, and it sucks that drawing a free is his instinct when the Wiz is good enough to do pretty much anything else.

All I ask is that you reconcile the AFL statement I link immediately above. Ginni was mistreated. And you are blaming him for that mistreatment.

Playing for a free? Talls play for frees by running into blocks. Who do you condemn for that behaviour? They exaggerate the slightest touch to the back, making it obvious. Mitchell Lewis should stay on the bench? Politely decline the free?
 
My entire thesis in bringing it up initially was that he's too talented to even partially be drawing high free kicks, that he would eventually have it highlighted because the footy world at large would definitely consider it a drawn high free, and that would result in free kicks - even those 100% there because he is very short - not getting paid.

I respect the "well about time we get them" perspective because it's unashamed bias and self interest, accepting that it's a bit dodgy but if it's in our favour it's all cool - that's a natural fan thing to have. I'm a bit bemused by the flat out rejection that it's a drawn free kick, because to me it's obvious that drawing a free is the intention and it's going to be even more obvious to non-Hawks fans and people in the media.

I feel in both of those cases it's short sighted because the AFL has shown that they're extremely wary of any contact with potential impact to the head - that includes both the player tackling, and the player getting tackled. This means, just like with Ginnivan when he was at the pies, it will eventually result in a reputation and a loss of the benefit of the doubt with the umps. We're already two thirds of the way there with Talking Footy having highlighted it last night.

As a footy fan free kicks make footy less enjoyable, and it sucks that drawing a free is his instinct when the Wiz is good enough to do pretty much anything else.

Selwood's condemnation for frees was that he raised his arms to cause the tackle to slip up. He stopped that behaviour, and started ducking. He then stopped that behaviour and went going crazy brave and staying low, making him impossible to tackle legally. Not ducking, but picking up the ball and staying close to the ground, daring the defender to attempt a tackle or let him go.

Somehow people are acting like any head-high tackle of a small forward is an illegitimate tackle at the fault of the forward. This is simply wrong. The AFL's statement regarding Ginni after the Cats game makes this clear.

I am not the one who is biased or seeing this issue in an illogical, inconsistent way.
 
Everyone has watched it closely and it's only Hawthorn fans that are trying to defend it. Everyone else has acknowledged what it is. The last one especially is laughably bad. Everyone defending it would will be howling when the exact same thing is given against us.
I’ve “defended it” in this thread and another. But to be clear I’m only defending that they were technically free kicks as the rules and interpretations are written.

Watson was 100% drawing the free kicks and would’ve acted differently in both situations if the rules and interpretations didn’t allow for it.

And I stand by my previous thought that it’s a crutch tactic far below his talent level. It wouldn’t bother me if they stopped paying them to him (as long as it was also all players) because it will force him to use his weapons which will get the best out of him.
 
Which group is more likely to be biased? Apparently, the group you disagree with is the answer.

It is nearly impossible to believe that where we were just two months ago:




The AFL admits they missed several head high tackles against Ginni that should have been called. They admit that Ginni played legally and the Cats played illegally. Ginni does not change his behaviour, knowing that it was legal, and now people are braying for his head to be removed again.

Small guys play close to the ground. Legitimately. And big guys have difficulty tackling them correctly. And this is the small guy's fault according to you. This debate is the most convoluted, bass-ackwards thing I can imagine.

According to me? Don't put words in my mouth. You've created this entire imaginary scenario in your head.

Of the free kicks highlighted the fourth was was clearly the most egregious. Watson leaned into that tackle, obviously. I don't think that Moore or Ginnivan really did anything wrong with their incidents. I thought the first Watson one was 50/50, though even Nash thought it was questionable at the time. Maybe Nash is in on this conspiracy too?

Ginnivan was not paid free kicks that he should have been fairly awarded earlier in the season. Watson milking a free against Vlastuin in the fourth quarter of a round 14 clash doesn't somehow now mean that what happened to Ginnivan earlier in the season was fair.

I'm looking at each incident individually, whilst you're trying to lump them all together. Or have I created that narrative in my head?
 
According to me? Don't put words in my mouth. You've created this entire imaginary scenario in your head.

Of the free kicks highlighted the fourth was was clearly the most egregious. Watson leaned into that tackle, obviously. I don't think that Moore or Ginnivan really did anything wrong with their incidents. I thought the first Watson one was 50/50, though even Nash thought it was questionable at the time. Maybe Nash is in on this conspiracy too?

Ginnivan was not paid free kicks that he should have been fairly awarded earlier in the season. Watson milking a free against Vlastuin in the fourth quarter of a round 14 clash doesn't somehow now mean that what happened to Ginnivan earlier in the season was fair.

I'm looking at each incident individually, whilst you're trying to lump them all together. Or have I created that narrative in my head?

"Conspiracy"? And I'm the one putting words in mouths? Disengenuous much?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top