Autopsy Round 8, 2026: Hawks bottle it

[Liverbird]

The Pies’ first quarter set the game up as an arm wrestle on their terms.

We led almost every category on the stats sheet but the fact there were only 15 possessions (10 Pies 5 Hawks) in the Pies forward 50, yet they were able to score 5 goals straight, meant they jumped out to a handy lead and got themselves well in front.

I was very happy with how our midfield played but felt our coaching staff didn’t adjust to what was happening during the match.

It was clear what Collingwood were doing, using the ball around boundary almost exclusively, and we simply conceded space on the mark and allowed them to transition to centre wing with minimal pressure.

They held their key defenders (Moore/Frampton) back as anchors and didn’t push too far into their front half.

So there’s was minimal chance of us getting any sling shot opportunities to score in turnover.

When their entries didn’t produce a score and we turned the ball over (which was not very often), they were excellent at quickly setting up their team defence and hemming us in deep.

So the game ended up being very “clunky” all night and that suited the Pies.

A relief that we didn’t lose, and hopefully some food for thought in the coaches box.

Yep this boundary chip chip play and quick breaks from Hawks unpressured mostly turnovers really, was their 2 avenues to goals. It worked for them all game though. Their style of play was set from minute one.

Our forwards could not take a mark, Gunston was nullified and we relied on the class of Wiz and Cmac to generate goals.

Woods accuracy was an outlier and what encouraged them to stay on task. Credit to them for their discipline, it was like a Clarko masterclass in diffusing the opposition strength.

As others have pointed out, the inability to hit f50 targets cleanly (pies pushed 3 extras back constantly) and fluffing some gettable shots (Lewis, Weddle) at goal was a key factor.

Weddle has a poor game. Moore kicked the drawing goal to his credit but was down, the defense was caught out most of the night. Meek gave away too many frees at crucial times also. There was some poor skills on display also.

Overall though the midfield dominating was the biggest positive, Reeves is playing very well, Cam McKenzie was having a crack, Ward got us some momentum in 3rd and kicked to Moore to give us chance to draw.

The umpiring needs to improve, not just for Hawthorn but everyone. The Woods got the rub of the green on Thur night though. Lardbottom Greg "the solution" Swan - must be getting into stand up comedy if the umpiring has never been better, to my mind across all games it is degrading.

Overall this was 2 points gained as bad kicking is bad footy and we were 7 points down with 1 minute to go. Against the Cats and Woods we have pulled out 6 of 8 points in this exact scenario.

Onwards and upwards Hawkers.

 

[smeltitdeltit]

The Pies’ first quarter set the game up as an arm wrestle on their terms.

We led almost every category on the stats sheet but the fact there were only 15 possessions (10 Pies 5 Hawks) in the Pies forward 50, yet they were able to score 5 goals straight, meant they jumped out to a handy lead and got themselves well in front.

I was very happy with how our midfield played but felt our coaching staff didn’t adjust to what was happening during the match.

It was clear what Collingwood were doing, using the ball around the boundary almost exclusively, and we simply conceded space on the mark and allowed them to transition to centre wing with minimal pressure.

They held their key defenders (Moore/Frampton) back as anchors and didn’t push too far into their front half.

So there’s was minimal chance of us getting any sling shot opportunities to score on turnover.

When their entries didn’t produce a score and we turned the ball over (which was not very often), they were excellent at quickly setting up their team defence and hemming us in deep.

So the game ended up being very “clunky” all night and that suited the Pies.

A relief that we didn’t lose, and hopefully some food for thought in the coaches box.

Interesting. I’d imagine it’s very hard for a coach to change a game plan when every key stat bar the score is continuing to go your way. The temptation to just hold the line and the score will come would be huge.

 

[bigmaxi]

The Pies’ first quarter set the game up as an arm wrestle on their terms.

We led almost every category on the stats sheet but the fact there were only 15 possessions (10 Pies 5 Hawks) in the Pies forward 50, yet they were able to score 5 goals straight, meant they jumped out to a handy lead and got themselves well in front.

I was very happy with how our midfield played but felt our coaching staff didn’t adjust to what was happening during the match.

It was clear what Collingwood were doing, using the ball around the boundary almost exclusively, and we simply conceded space on the mark and allowed them to transition to centre wing with minimal pressure.

They held their key defenders (Moore/Frampton) back as anchors and didn’t push too far into their front half.

So there’s was minimal chance of us getting any sling shot opportunities to score on turnover.

When their entries didn’t produce a score and we turned the ball over (which was not very often), they were excellent at quickly setting up their team defence and hemming us in deep.

So the game ended up being very “clunky” all night and that suited the Pies.

A relief that we didn’t lose, and hopefully some food for thought in the coaches box.

My thought was to slow the entries in F50 down, pass it around the top of the 50m and look for the quick shallow entry. Say 35-40m out and take shots from there, deep fifty was more crowed than trough at lunch time in Parliament House.

 

[HedgeFund]

Interesting. I’d imagine it’s very hard for a coach to change a game plan when every key stat bar the score is continuing to go your way. The temptation to just hold the line and the score will come would be huge.

Yep - totally agree.

Usually in the coaches box, they would have a series of “what if” scenarios already pre-planned. If you see an opposition trend you don’t want to continue then a message goes out to address it on ground.

Coaching and training several modes of offensive and defensive mechanisms is pretty common.

It may well be that we were happy to let them stroll up to their forward half on the basis we’d expect to intercept their entries if/when bombed.

Collingwood didn’t bomb it into their F50 often as we had the ascendancy in the air.

They knew they needed to pull Barrass and Battle up high, keep their forward line open and isolate the likes of Elliott and Buller.

Goals were also slotted from long range by Daicos, De Goey and Maynard when they were left in space.

It wasn’t a very successful night in the Hawthorn coaches box in my view.

We appeared to be too willing to back the players on the basis of talent/class alone and expect that would prevail in the end.

 

[Snoref]

IT WAS CLEARLY..

View attachment 2599316

not touched

Robbed!

 

[SSSSSS]

Correct. Freo play 4 talls:
Treacy
Voss
Amiss
Mason Cox.

I'd back our three tall structure to deal with three plus an inanimate carbon rod. Run off them all game.

 

[SSSSSS]

Would love for our club to be a bit more adventurous against the flood. Find a target in that 55-60m hitzone and have a crack at the big sticks.

They can't clog up our forward line and defend the running half backs looking for a shot on the run without giving their slingshot up. We were too predictable and at least it will ask some questions of their defensive set up.

Amon, Sicily, Scrim and Battle all on the run should have the license to take a ping.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

IT WAS CLEARLY..

View attachment 2599316

not touched

It was very clearly touched, when watching the replay. the ball deviates after the contact was made by Gunners boot.

No amount of singe shot screen caps will prove otherwise.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

The ball didn’t deviate

It absolutely did.

 

[RCAB]

It absolutely did.

It was very clearly touched, when watching the replay. the ball deviates after the contact was made by Gunners boot.

No amount of singe shot screen caps will prove otherwise.

Both those posts contradict each other.

If you say no amount of single shot can prove otherwise, then the same can be said vice versa.

If the ball was touched and deviated, you'd have to prove it deviated after Gunston kicked it, not before.

 

[Bedi]

Have to finish top 2 though, that generally means we'll be at the G for the entire finals series. I'd much prefer not to have to go to Perth or Qld at all.

That'd be nice, but we're good enough to win on the road, as we did last year. But def top 4. What we want is a less hectic run into the finals as last year. After 8 weeks of must-win games it's no wonder we were gassed in that prelim

 

[Bedi]

Both those posts contradict each other.

If you say no amount of single shot can prove otherwise, then the same can be said vice versa.

If the ball was touched and deviated, you'd have to prove it deviated after Gunston kicked it, not before.

Esp as the ump's call was a goal

 

[grumbleguts]

It was very clearly touched, when watching the replay. the ball deviates after the contact was made by Gunners boot.

No amount of singe shot screen caps will prove otherwise.

The thing that I found confusing was the lack of remonstrating from Maynard.

 

[Roddy]

That'd be nice, but we're good enough to win on the road, as we did last year. But def top 4. What we want is a less hectic run into the finals as last year. After 8 weeks of must-win games it's not wonder we were gassed in that prelim

Yep, good points.

 

[HedgeFund]

The thing that I found confusing was the lack of remonstrating from Maynard.

Ummmmm…..

He stood up, hive fived a team mate and calmly said “I touched it”.

It was that obvious he didn’t need to “remonstrate”.

 

[peetoo]

Umpire seemed quite sure he didnt

 

[seysearles]

It was very clearly touched, when watching the replay. the ball deviates after the contact was made by Gunners boot.

No amount of singe shot screen caps will prove otherwise.

Haha, yes it was you. I think you might need glasses mate. "cleary touched". Thats genuinely hilarious. Is the sky red also? Why be so adamant about something we can all see ourselves in the replay? Do you have access to footage that we dont?

Esp as the ump's call was a goal

Yes this is the crucial thing. It couldn't have been reversed had the umpire called it a behind either. The footage was TOTALLY inconclusive. Therefore goal umpire's call.

 

[cyrilsez]

Teams ranked high to low based on goal kicking accuracy for rds 1-6 2026

Not looking good

View attachment 2599409

But looking good for next week.

 

[cryptor]

There was some dickhead on the game day thread asserting with authority that it "was touched". On what basis i have no idea. The Fox footage showed no such thing. The goal umpire called it a goal and the footage was not even close to being definitive. The ball was turning quite wildly when it passed Maynard's hand and there is no way to tell if the trajectory was from a touch or just the way it was travelling. It was an ATROCIOUS shit decision.

Thanks for sharing the clip. It’s tricky to break it down on Kayo’s shitty app.

Very clear to see tracking it frame by frame that at 0:54-0:55 Gunston makes contact with his boot and Maynards hands are already past the ball.

 

[grumbleguts]

Ummmmm…..

He stood up, hive fived a team mate and calmly said “I touched it”.

It was that obvious he didn’t need to “remonstrate”.

I mean after the goal umpire called it a goal. His reaction is a claim not a remonstration.

Why TF did I even bother hitting show ignored content?

 

[smeltitdeltit]

After being pissed with the result all weekend I’m now a bit more sanguine. Exposed a lot of issues to be worked on that a win could have papered over to an extent and still managed 2 points. It was clear watching that it was going to be “one of those days” we had them in the three peat era too.

 

[SSSSSS]

Another excellent way to stop teams flooding.

Don't kick 1.7 in the first quarter. There's no incentive for teams to open themselves up if they're in front.

If we pile on a score teams will need to be more attacking and it opens the game up.

 

[flinchfree]

Haha, yes it was you. I think you might need glasses mate. "cleary touched". Thats genuinely hilarious. Is the sky red also? Why be so adamant about something we can all see ourselves in the replay? Do you have access to footage that we dont?


Yes this is the crucial thing. It couldn't have been reversed had the umpire called it a behind either. The footage was TOTALLY inconclusive. Therefore goal umpire's call.

I was sure it was touched after they ran the reply a couple times.
Could see the deviation post touch.

 

[BlueWaterHawk]

The Pies’ first quarter set the game up as an arm wrestle on their terms.

We led almost every category on the stats sheet but the fact there were only 15 possessions (10 Pies 5 Hawks) in the Pies forward 50, yet they were able to score 5 goals straight, meant they jumped out to a handy lead and got themselves well in front.

I was very happy with how our midfield played but felt our coaching staff didn’t adjust to what was happening during the match.

It was clear what Collingwood were doing, using the ball around the boundary almost exclusively, and we simply conceded space on the mark and allowed them to transition to centre wing with minimal pressure.

They held their key defenders (Moore/Frampton) back as anchors and didn’t push too far into their front half.

So there was minimal chance of us getting any sling shot opportunities to score on turnover.

When their entries didn’t produce a score and we turned the ball over (which was not very often), they were excellent at quickly setting up their team defence and hemming us in deep.

So the game ended up being very “clunky” all night and that suited the Pies.

A relief that we didn’t lose, and hopefully some food for thought in the coaches box.

I think if we actually put some score pressure on in Q1, the game would have played out very differently, but they could play on their terms after that disastrous opening quarter in front of goals. We kicked 12.8 after Q1, which is perfectly acceptable, so it was really one out of the box for inaccuracy, and put us in a situation that should never have eventuated.

Anyway, we move on and hopefully start strong this week.

 

[seysearles]

I was sure it was touched after they ran the reply a couple times.
Could see the deviation post touch.

Can you please show me where because this is the only replay i have access to. Perhaps there is another one?!

What frame should i be looking at to see the ball deviating? My gut feeling is that the ARC are going off the Collingwood players reactions which should not come into it whatsoever. It's very much in their interests to sell it as being touched. Every holding the ball and intentional out of bounds opposition will plead their case to the umpires irrespective of the reality.