Analysis The Clarkson Rebuild Model - A Reason For Optimism

[Hodgey 15]

We did win the clearances by 1 but ours were generally a lower standard of clearance apart from Worpel or omeara being brilliant and bursting away.

The problem I describe above is evident in our general play also. Even where we look to win the ball, we still run to position ourselves next to the person with the ball instead of providing a release option.

1.the ball tumbled forward from a stoppage. Omeara and Worpel have busted their butt from the stoppage. Worpel on the ground after tackling. Omeara wins the ball and hands off to hardwick who looks up and it’s all Geelong in front of him. Brand hasn’t pushed back far enough to be clear of the contest but is still a viable option. Ideally Mira, who is in brand’s vision, would scream at brand for the ball as he pushes back to goal. That would then bring scrimshaw into play and we exit on the far wing.
View attachment 660257

2. Instead brand gets a call from Worpel and Sicily. The problem is Sicily is facing the wrong way and no one in his field of vision has worked hard enough to give him an option. Again we see a cluster of hawks on the inside surrounded by cats. Instead of calling for the ball from brand Worpel could have provided an option for Sicily. Hardwick could have moved and dragged the cat behind him away from Mira. Mira also is just spectating but a loud voice here and some movement towards space or the goal line probably should be happening right now. Without an other option, Sicily u-turns and attempts a blind clearing kick but it’s smothered by Selwood and ends up going to kelly who kicks a goal.View attachment 660258

So we have a 7 on 5 yet can’t find a single free team mate because we arent working as a team for each other. It’s see ball and get ball stuff. Omeara and scrimshaw havent gotten sucked completely into the contest and both end up trying to defend kelly but kelly has the luxury of space as he never had to come into the contest at all because we never had anyone outside it to receive the ball which would pose a threat. In short Geelong can afford to hold their shape as hawthorn’s rabid swarm doesn’t pose any sort of threat that can’t be handled by lessor numbers.

We need to talk and we need to work harder to get free players on the outside of the contest. That will enable us to spread from contests. It’s literally impossible if we all stand within a couple of meters. It’s simply too easy to defend. Even where we have two extra players we can’t clear it.

Fine effort on both of the analytical posts Bris. Love your work with this.

 

[thejockey]

Great read , thank you

 

[Leeda]

and we are at premium velocity...

 

[Goldhawk]

I agree with Brishawk especially in the tackling department, we really are very poor there.....don't know why we don't get someone from Melbourne Storm to help us out in tackling techniques. That easy tackle that Mirra missed really disappointed me, it would have saved us a goal.

After all the Sainters got Billy Slater on board for this season.

 

[MrPremiership]

Tackling is quite overrated in the modern game. How many HTBs get called per game? 5 or 6? How many tackles are laid? 60? Poor strike rate for a move that gets you out of position and can set up a loose man for the oppo

Yes there is pressure and that can turn into poor decision making and disposal, but until umps start paying obvious free kicks out of the tackles, then it will be a pointless exercise

 

[Brishawk]

Tackling is quite overrated in the modern game. How many HTBs get called per game? 5 or 6? How many tackles are laid? 60? Poor strike rate for a move that gets you out of position and can set up a loose man for the oppo

Yes there is pressure and that can turn into poor decision making and disposal, but until umps start paying obvious free kicks out of the tackles, then it will be a pointless exercise

You also need to consider holding the man after they throw the ball away and tackling too high after they duck. Probably only useful for brining about a stoppage.

 

[The Chad and I]

Tackling is quite overrated in the modern game. How many HTBs get called per game? 5 or 6? How many tackles are laid? 60? Poor strike rate for a move that gets you out of position and can set up a loose man for the oppo

Free kicks are not the only benefit of tackling.
How many turnovers from those tackles?
How many goals from those turnovers?
How many times was the disposal effectiveness diminished by the tackle?

It all adds up.

 

[KermitJagger]

Tackling is quite overrated in the modern game. How many HTBs get called per game? 5 or 6? How many tackles are laid? 60? Poor strike rate for a move that gets you out of position and can set up a loose man for the oppo

Yes there is pressure and that can turn into poor decision making and disposal, but until umps start paying obvious free kicks out of the tackles, then it will be a pointless exercise

We have always been a corral first, tackle second type of team, but you still need to be able to use your tackling in close to force stoppages or restrict forward movement.

I agree with Brishawk especially in the tackling department, we really are very poor there.....don't know why we don't get someone from Melbourne Storm to help us out in tackling techniques. That easy tackle that Mirra missed really disappointed me, it would have saved us a goal.

After all the Sainters got Billy Slater on board for this season.

Get Cyril back as tackling coach. Still the best tackler I have ever seen in AFL football.

 

[TheWaffles]

*defensive tactic* we've had this same tactic (chasing and harassing the ball carrier) for a long time, but when Hodge, Mitchell ect were there they held such a high standard(for tackling) that they demanded the team trust the individual to pressure or lay the tackle, these days our tackling has fallen off and we have too many outside players who are known for poor tackling efforts, in this weeks team we had Smith, Scully, Morrison, Henderson, Impey, Wingard, Nash, Scrimshaw and Breust all outside players and mostly poor tacklers if they lay a meaningful tackle at all in a game.

*attacking tactic* we rely on turn overs for most of our scoring shots, have so for years, and so on the back of poor team work when it comes to tackling and our team defense our attack and turn over for an easy mark in the forw 50 or run into open goal is drying up.

as for clearances we finished +1 in clearances and -11 on tackles

our spread is a problem, we clump up and we dont have a Hodge + other generals telling everyone to spread out and cover flanks and to trust in one another to make the tackle or win the ball ect, we also are playing too many outside players and this means less tackles and less contested possession which can be good if you play a high fitness game plan, which we have had the luxury of in the past with the best fitness trainer in the AFL for over 20 years(14 at the Hawks), but maybe not so much now?.

as for our midfield, i liked the couple of times Wingard was in there, but mostly its Worpel and JOM doing the business, Poppy had a couple good plays as well, Cousins had a poor game, Howe did some tough and defensive things but we could have better players through there, missing Shiels and Mitchell is hurting us.

Impy is an excellent tackler. Skully and Smith are played outside its fine. Breust is also a good tackler. Nash is fine, his problem is reading the play to get into position for a tackle.

 

[MrPremiership]

Free kicks are not the only benefit of tackling.
How many turnovers from those tackles?
How many goals from those turnovers?
How many times was the disposal effectiveness diminished by the tackle?

It all adds up.

that was the second part of the post.......

 

[MrPremiership]

We have always been a corral first, tackle second type of team, but you still need to be able to use your tackling in close to force stoppages or restrict forward movement.



Get Cyril back as tackling coach. Still the best tackler I have ever seen in AFL football.

We give away more "high" and "in the back" frees against than "HTB" frees that we win. Our tackling is always a net loss based on that metric alone.

I get the whole pressure aspect, but corralling teams would be pretty useful. Our tackling, and throwing extra numbers at the ball to tackle, always leaves us outnumbered once the ball gets out

 

[HODGEYROAD]

Reality is we 4 of our back 6 set for the next 5-7 years, Sicily, Hardwick, Impey and Scrimshaw. Replacing Frawley and Stratton over the next 2 years will be a task for the club but hopefully that eventuates either by trade, FA, Draft or internally.

Provided we land Coniglio, we have the bulk of our midfield set for the next 5 years which is rather exciting ( I can't stress how important it is we get Coniglio to our club ) Titch, Coniglio, Jaeger, Worpel, Shiels and Scully still have several seasons left.

Gunston, Bruest and Wingard all have 3-5 years left and with quality ball movement I'm sure they will be quality players again. Finding key position foil around that is another test for the club, landing Patton ? the development of Mitch Lewis ? something like that needs to work out for us in a good way.

Rucks are another bit of a concern as I think Big Boy only has another couple of years left and who knows what'll happen with Ceglar.

Still if we have a couple of huge off seasons grabbing a couple of A graders mixed in with money ball types like Impey and Scrimshaw, coupled with some internal development it's not beyond the realms of possibility we're competing at the pointy end in 2 years time.

 

[Brishawk]

Reality is we 4 of our back 6 set for the next 5-7 years, Sicily, Hardwick, Impey and Scrimshaw. Replacing Frawley and Stratton over the next 2 years will be a task for the club but hopefully that eventuates either by trade, FA, Draft or internally.

Provided we land Coniglio, we have the bulk of our midfield set for the next 5 years which is rather exciting ( I can't stress how important it is we get Coniglio to our club ) Titch, Coniglio, Jaeger, Worpel, Shiels and Scully still have several seasons left.

Gunston, Bruest and Wingard all have 3-5 years left and with quality ball movement I'm sure they will be quality players again. Finding key position foil around that is another test for the club, landing Patton ? the development of Mitch Lewis ? something like that needs to work out for us in a good way.

Rucks are another bit of a concern as I think Big Boy only has another couple of years left and who knows what'll happen with Ceglar.

Still if we have a couple of huge off seasons grabbing a couple of A graders mixed in with money ball types like Impey and Scrimshaw, coupled with some internal development it's not beyond the realms of possibility we're competing at the pointy end in 2 years time.

The potential best 22 is quite strong but we also need to develop depth in the squad. That is why the next tier down needs to be given opportunities at senior level. Nash, glass, O’Brien, hanrahan etc.

 

[Wandering Hawk]

Reality is we 4 of our back 6 set for the next 5-7 years, Sicily, Hardwick, Impey and Scrimshaw. Replacing Frawley and Stratton over the next 2 years will be a task for the club but hopefully that eventuates either by trade, FA, Draft or internally.

Provided we land Coniglio, we have the bulk of our midfield set for the next 5 years which is rather exciting ( I can't stress how important it is we get Coniglio to our club ) Titch, Coniglio, Jaeger, Worpel, Shiels and Scully still have several seasons left.

Gunston, Bruest and Wingard all have 3-5 years left and with quality ball movement I'm sure they will be quality players again. Finding key position foil around that is another test for the club, landing Patton ? the development of Mitch Lewis ? something like that needs to work out for us in a good way.

Rucks are another bit of a concern as I think Big Boy only has another couple of years left and who knows what'll happen with Ceglar.

Still if we have a couple of huge off seasons grabbing a couple of A graders mixed in with money ball types like Impey and Scrimshaw, coupled with some internal development it's not beyond the realms of possibility we're competing at the pointy end in 2 years time.

2022 Hawks Premiership Team

Defenders:

xxxx, xxxx, Impey, Sicily, Hardwick, TOB, Scrimshaw.

depth: Brand, Morrison, Glass, xxxx, xxxx
unplayed: CJ, Greaves, Kosi
likely too old: Birchall, Frawley, Stratton

Reality here is that we need to trade in a KPD and likely find one more good player.

Mids:

Shiels, Scully, (Cogs), Mitchell, O'Meara, Worpel, xxxx

depth: Howe, Cousins, xxxx, xxxx, xxxx
unplayed: Golds, Jones
likely too old: Smith, Henderson

With Finn McGuinness and the look of Golds and Jones we may already be there. One more good mid (Whitfield) would be applesauce.

Forwards:

Breust, Gunston, Wingard, (Patton), Lewis, xxxx, xxxx

depth: Nash, Hanrahan, Moore, xxxx, xxxx
unplayed: Ross, Walker
likely too old: Ceglar

Ross and Walker look great, and between them, Moore, and Hanrahan we probably only need one more good forward, possibly a ruck/forward, but could hopefully cover with Ceglar in a pinch.

Ruck:

McEvoy (aged)
depth: Pittonet
unplayed: Reeves

A lot depends on how McEvoy ages. We probably need to find a backup ruck or a ruck/forward to replace Ceglar.


We normally need every season to use 5 depth players from each of defender/mid/forward. The discussion is thus more about building the 36 than a best 22.

Assuming that at end 2019 we get Cogs, Patton, + select Finn we're doing pretty amazingly well.

We have then have two years after 2019 to:
find a KPD plus one more defender
find one more good mid
find a ruck/forward to replace Ceglar

Most of our unplayed kids are looking at least good enough to become great depth or good value trades.

 

[Hawk_francais]

With Birchall coming back into the side it clarifies for me that we're probably going to see a 'churn' of players between this year and next. Roughead I believe has even stated he's finishing up, but I think Burgoyne will join him. This is nothing to do with his capabilities now, but I can see that we have an emerging backline. The equation simply is that we won't be able to guarantee Burgoyne a game there, especially if Birchall (who is 5 years younger!) continues to see out the year with his usual flying colours. Scrimshaw and O'Brien have made strong cases this year, while Glass, Brand, Miles and soon Koschitzke will all be sniffing around.

Is it time for Puopolo? I think he's still capable, and I have no doubt that his lack of goals the last few years is mostly due to the chemistry between players around goal. But what would be the point of him building that chemistry at the expense of Moore, Ross, Walker, Minchington?

If we were firmly in the frame for a flag next year (I wouldn't complain), things might be different, but I think we've got our sights on 2021.

Here is my stab at a best 22 for next year: (FA and trade signings of Coniglio, Patton, Fyfe, De Goey etc. notwithstanding

B: Blake Hardwick James Frawley Ben Stratton

HB: Grant Birchall James Sicily Jarman Impey

C: Tom Scully Jaeger O'Meara Isaac Smith

HF: Chad Wingard Jack Gunston Conor Nash

F: Oliver Hanrahan Mitchell Lewis Luke Breust

R: Ben McEvoy Tom Mitchell James Worpel

Int: Jack Scrimshaw Tim O'Brien Liam Shiels Ricky Henderson

THE BIG QUESTION is how do we attack the last 6 weeks of this season? Does Scrimshaw get a game ahead of Burgoyne? Likewise Nash and Poppy? Painful but necessary questions.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Clarko, last weekend, post the victory against the Pies.

"We've been through, in my time here, over the 15 years, two waves, of which we've risen to the top of the mountain both those times – one in 2008, and then the era from '13 to '15," Clarkson said on Friday night.
"Without a doubt we're in that transition again; to find our next wave of success for our footy club. When's that going to be? I'm not too sure.
"But in 2010, when we were debuting kids like Isaac Smith and Luke Breust and Ben Stratton and Ryan Schoenmakers and Paul Puopolo and these sorts of lads, there were a lot of scribes out there saying they're too skinny and not consistent enough.
"That's just the way of the world until they get exposure to the level enough that they build their confidence to make a contribution on a consistent basis – and that just takes some time."
"I reckon our Hawks supporters would be seeing that there are some kids there who might emerge into good players for us in the next few years," he said.
"If they go on to be really good players, then we'll give ourselves a chance to win some silverware again in the not-too-distant future."

 

[Pessimistic]

If burgoyne retires, let him play games to mark his outstanding career.

Even next year I still think his leadership, but depends who gets recruited

 

[Brishawk]

I have been taking a a look at draft data recently so thought I'd share a few observations. I think when most people think about the draft, we tend to think of getting elite talent at the top end of the draft. I thought I'd examine the data to see how much draft position matters in the long run using data relating to the top 50 picks. I haven't bothered to filter out active players from the data so bare that in mind.

1. We can see that the expected outcome in terms of games played is flat after the first round. Only the first 3 picks in the draft have a median games played of greater than 100 games.


2. I know what you are thinking...you need top picks to get the best players....well....you get a slightly better chance of it but there is a huge opportunity all through the top 50. This one is for AA players (not necessarily at their original club). You certainly see more in the top 20 but from about 35-50 there has also been great opportunity. The picks from 20-35 appear to be a bit of a dead zone for AA players. 1 = AA player.


3. Almost an identical spread for B&F winners (not necessarily at their original club). 1 = B&F winner.



4. Premiership players (not necessarily at their original club) show an even more even spread. If you didn't know this was ordered by picks you would probably find it hard to see the very slight higher density of B&F winners to the left of the chart. 1 = premiership player. A standard OLS regression (controlling for Hawthorn) showed only the tiniest decrease in your chances of getting a premiership player as you go deeper into the draft. The thing to note is that premiership players taken earlier in the draft tend to play more games than premiership players taken later in the draft. Thi is likely a reflection of the readiness of players taken early in the draft compared to those later. Also, clubs that can identify and develop talent into premiership standard players probably win a few premierships


5. Premiership players drafted by Hawthorn are also found pretty much anywhere. Amazingly there are only 30 players drafted by Hawthorn in the top 50 to ever play in a premiership. I'll have to do some digging to see how many players we didn't't draft or drafted later. Note, this would include Josh Kennedy who won a premiership with Sydney. Premiership player drafted by Hawthorn = 1.


I think you can see why we are generally willing to chance our arm in the middle of the draft. Lately we have gone almost out of the draft so I'll next focus on building a database of picks after the top 50 to examine those. got a lot of plans for this little bit of analysis but little time to do it...

 

[Brant]

That's awesome Brishawk

Can you do one for Brownlow Votes, or is that maybe too many variables?

What would be the best measure for 'value'?

Games played is fine, but I'd rather our 3x years of Brian Lake than the 22-odd years Carltank have got out of Kade Simpson.
AFL Points (or Supercoach etc.)? Or are they heavily weighted to favour midfielders?

 

[KermitJagger]

I have been taking a a look at draft data recently so thought I'd share a few observations. I think when most people think about the draft, we tend to think of getting elite talent at the top end of the draft. I thought I'd examine the data to see how much draft position matters in the long run using data relating to the top 50 picks. I haven't bothered to filter out active players from the data so bare that in mind.

1. We can see that the expected outcome in terms of games played is flat after the first round. Only the first 3 picks in the draft have a median games played of greater than 100 games.


2. I know what you are thinking...you need top picks to get the best players....well....you get a slightly better chance of it but there is a huge opportunity all through the top 50. This one is for AA players (not necessarily at their original club). You certainly see more in the top 20 but from about 35-50 there has also been great opportunity. The picks from 20-35 appear to be a bit of a dead zone for AA players. 1 = AA player.


3. Almost an identical spread for B&F winners (not necessarily at their original club). 1 = B&F winner.



4. Premiership players (not necessarily at their original club) show an even more even spread. If you didn't know this was ordered by picks you would probably find it hard to see the very slight higher density of B&F winners to the left of the chart. 1 = premiership player. A standard OLS regression (controlling for Hawthorn) showed only the tiniest decrease in your chances of getting a premiership player as you go deeper into the draft. The thing to note is that premiership players taken earlier in the draft tend to play more games than premiership players taken later in the draft. Thi is likely a reflection of the readiness of players taken early in the draft compared to those later. Also, clubs that can identify and develop talent into premiership standard players probably win a few premierships


5. Premiership players drafted by Hawthorn are also found pretty much anywhere. Amazingly there are only 30 players drafted by Hawthorn in the top 50 to ever play in a premiership. I'll have to do some digging to see how many players we didn't't draft or drafted later. Note, this would include Josh Kennedy who won a premiership with Sydney. Premiership player drafted by Hawthorn = 1.


I think you can see why we are generally willing to chance our arm in the middle of the draft. Lately we have gone almost out of the draft so I'll next focus on building a database of picks after the top 50 to examine those. got a lot of plans for this little bit of analysis but little time to do it...

I've done little bits of analysis on the draft and all of this, but I gave up on getting the bulk data in an accessible way. Like you said - there's little time to do this stuff. Very useful though!

 

[Brishawk]

That's awesome Brishawk

Can you do one for Brownlow Votes, or is that maybe too many variables?

What would be the best measure for 'value'?

Games played is fine, but I'd rather our 3x years of Brian Lake than the 22-odd years Carltank have got out of Kade Simpson.
AFL Points (or Supercoach etc.)? Or are they heavily weighted to favour midfielders?

I’ll check but I think I do have Brownlow data. The current issue I have, apart from the difficulty acquiring the data, is the only independent variables I have is the pick and the club. Am going to try get player height and whatever else I can easily get. I also need to exclude current players from a more formal analysis. But that means taking out about ten years of data which isn’t ideal.

At this stage lake wouldn’t feature in the data for premiership players drafted by hawthorn as he was drafted by the dogs. Also he was drafted outside the top 50. Also, in this analysis he would show up as having played in excess of 200 games not just the handful he played at hawthorn.

Edit: as for the question about value, I think the burst guide is did that player win a premiership? At the bottom end of the draft there may be different reasons for picking players i.e. depth, experience, mature body. Which is why I won’t touch the rookie draft. Other than that, a set of benchmarks such as 200 games, aa, bnf, etc. is really the only way to look at it without getting super complicated and breaking down by position and various stats and ranking algorithms.

 

[essaynode]

I’ll check but I think I do have Brownlow data. The current issue I have, apart from the difficulty acquiring the data, is the only independent variables I have is the pick and the club. Am going to try get player height and whatever else I can easily get. I also need to exclude current players from a more formal analysis. But that means taking out about ten years of data which isn’t ideal.

At this stage lake wouldn’t feature in the data for premiership players drafted by hawthorn as he was drafted by the dogs. Also he was drafted outside the top 50. Also, in this analysis he would show up as having played in excess of 200 games not just the handful he played at hawthorn.

Edit: as for the question about value, I think the burst guide is did that player win a premiership? At the bottom end of the draft there may be different reasons for picking players i.e. depth, experience, mature body. Which is why I won’t touch the rookie draft. Other than that, a set of benchmarks such as 200 games, aa, bnf, etc. is really the only way to look at it without getting super complicated and breaking down by position and various stats and ranking algorithms.

I'm impressed Brishawk. Clearly you have too much time on your hands to sift through the data or write an algorithm to do it for you!

I think the bottom line is that recruiters are human, are prone to bias, and as such can be hit and miss at the draft. More important is the environment you bring the recruits into that then develops and shapes them. (i.e. the Jack Watts premise that if he'd gone to a good club, he might have had a better chance at fulfilling his potential)

What I have also picked up over time is that you work to your strengths and don't concentrate on your deficiencies. E.g. if they are a good footballer but don't have speed (think Sam Mitchell), or height (think Caleb Daniel), or etc... they can still be very valuable. Of course you want someone who is a good footballer, has speed, height, endurance, skills on both sides of the body, etc... but there are very few Adonis-es out there.

We have recruited well for strength and using the team to cover for each other's deficiencies. Hence the "play your role" mantra.

 

[Brishawk]

I'm impressed Brishawk. Clearly you have too much time on your hands to sift through the data or write an algorithm to do it for you!

I think the bottom line is that recruiters are human, are prone to bias, and as such can be hit and miss at the draft. More important is the environment you bring the recruits into that then develops and shapes them. (i.e. the Jack Watts premise that if he'd gone to a good club, he might have had a better chance at fulfilling his potential)

What I have also picked up over time is that you work to your strengths and don't concentrate on your deficiencies. E.g. if they are a good footballer but don't have speed (think Sam Mitchell), or height (think Caleb Daniel), or etc... they can still be very valuable. Of course you want someone who is a good footballer, has speed, height, endurance, skills on both sides of the body, etc... but there are very few Adonis-es out there.

We have recruited well for strength and using the team to cover for each other's deficiencies. Hence the "play your role" mantra.

If I had to say there was one bias in the data I’d suggest it is that recruiters prioritise players who have more developed athleticism and physique which enables them to play games sooner. Or maybe it’s bad teams are forced to play new recruits at the top of the draft sooner. But you can see in the data early picks get to games benchmarks earlier. I don’t have the unit data for that but have seen the aggregate data.

 

[Brishawk]

Another observation on value. Looking at aa and bnf players, very few play less than 100 games for their career. Almost all the 300+ game players have an AA and most also have a bnf. Premiership players don’t follow the same pattern. A lot more play fewer than 100 career games. And 300 games is no longer a guarantee of success. So maybe building a premiership list is in part a matter of finding the right player at the right time rather than the best players.

 

[KermitJagger]

Another observation on value. Looking at aa and bnf players, very few play less than 100 games for their career. Almost all the 300+ game players have an AA and most also have a bnf. Premiership players don’t follow the same pattern. A lot more play fewer than 100 career games. And 300 games is no longer a guarantee of success. So maybe building a premiership list is in part a matter of finding the right player at the right time rather than the best players.

100% - your core of top line players is never going to be the same size as the depth of players behind them. Much more important to winning premierships than having the most stars, is having the best depth.