Well done Cats

[Simon_Nesbit]

Written my thoughts on the game elsewhere, but reading back it comes accross as pretty prissy (rule interpretations), so thought I'd put in a post here - maybe some other posters will use it to.

Well done on Friday, you had the experience and class to get over the line. Whilst I genuinely believe we matched/beat you in general play for the majority of the game, our inability to put it on the scoreboard (goal-kicking) and some poor turnovers allowed you to do what you do best.

And to be honest you were often brutal on the counter-attack.

Look forward to meeting in September.

(and FWIW, against us your biggest out was Milburn IMO).

 

[ant0s]

Alot of talk about Hawthorn missed opportunities but imagine if we kicked straight as well. 12-16 was terrible from us. One shot at goal typified that when Gamble kicked it into the man on the mark from 20 metres out.

 

[boozeDragon]

Alot of talk about Hawthorn missed opportunities but imagine if we kicked straight as well. 12-16 was terrible from us. One shot at goal typified that when Gamble kicked it into the man on the mark from 20 metres out.

Your score was 12.16

We rushed 7 behinds.

12.9 isn't poor kicking...

You rushed 1 behind and we had a number of kicks that didn't make the distance (Hodge and Buddy from memory) or went out on the full (Ladson from memory). We had a lot more wasted opportunities on goal.

Mind you, kicking is a skill in football and its another part of the game where you were better last night.

 

[catempire]

Your score was 12.16

We rushed 7 behinds.

12.9 isn't poor kicking...

You rushed 1 behind and we had a number of kicks that didn't make the distance (Hodge and Buddy from memory) or went out on the full (Ladson from memory). We had a lot more wasted opportunities on goal.

Mind you, kicking is a skill in football and its another part of the game where you were better last night.

1. You rushed so many behinds because you were pinned down deep in defence. Not rushing them could have resulted in more goals.

2. While 12.9 isn't terrible kicking, Geelong missed relatively easy opportunities (Gamble and Stokes come to mind).

3. A clear strategy from Geelong was to push Buddy wide and make him kick miracle goals from the pocket if he was good enough. He wasn't. It was great planning by Geelong. Buddy is never going to kick 9 from those angles.

 

[Brasil2007]

I wonder if we'd kicked one or two more goals if we'd have to put up with this "we won the game everywhere except on the scoreboard stuff". Let's ignore the fact that a lot of those rushed behinds came from our players playing on from set shots and dropping it short. Let's think about the couple that Stokes missed under no pressure from 50 (I think there were two), Kelly's shot early in the game, Gamble's touched one and Otto's shot. And they are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

Both sides missed chances and made mistakes. That's what pressure does.

 

[boozeDragon]

1. You rushed so many behinds because you were pinned down deep in defence. Not rushing them could have resulted in more goals.

2. While 12.9 isn't terrible kicking, Geelong missed relatively easy opportunities (Gamble and Stokes come to mind).

3. A clear strategy from Geelong was to push Buddy wide and make him kick miracle goals from the pocket if he was good enough. He wasn't. It was great planning by Geelong. Buddy is never going to kick 9 from those angles.

I only brought up rushed behinds because your fellow supporter said you kicked 12.16 and that was woeful...

I meant to say that you really kicked 12.9, you were actually quite accurate.

I agree... we rushed a lot because of your forward pressure.

With regards to Buddy, I think you don't watch many Hawks games. He's actually likely to kick more from the pocket than directly in front.

 

[catempire]

With regards to Buddy, I think you don't watch many Hawks games. He's actually likely to kick more from the pocket than directly in front.

I doubt that this is statistically true. Even so, history will show that it was is a sound strategy to push him wide and make him kick difficult goals. They weren't easy kicks and had he kicked them, we'd be marveling at his genius for being able to do so, as we would for any player that could do it.

It gets a bit tiresome having supporters of the teams we beat come back and say why they were beaten good things or why they're a good shot next time. It seems to happen every other week. The fact is, this game was there for Hawthorn to win with several of Geelong's key movers out and you failed to do so.

 

[boozeDragon]

I doubt that this is statistically true. Even so, history will show that it was is a sound strategy to push him wide and make him kick difficult goals. They weren't easy kicks and had he kicked them, we'd be marveling at his genius for being able to do so, as we would for any player that could do it.

It gets a bit tiresome having supporters of the teams we beat come back and say why they were beaten good things or why they're a good shot next time. It seems to happen every other week. The fact is, this game was there for Hawthorn to win with several of Geelong's key movers out and you failed to do so.

Agree to disagree

Let's look forward to September.

 

[The Casey Cat]

Agree to disagree

Let's look forward to September.

I don't see how it's that hard to see both teams squandered a lot of chances up forward and made what we would consider uncharacteristic errors that cost goals (Hawthorn's errors, Scarlett-Rooke stuff up and Corey's clanger down the guts). Either way well done to Hawk supporters in this thread. Showing a shitload more class than their team's coach did post game with his umpiring comment.

 

[boozeDragon]

I don't see how it's that hard to see both teams squandered a lot of chances up forward and made what we would consider uncharacteristic errors that cost goals (Hawthorn's errors, Scarlett-Rooke stuff up and Corey's clanger down the guts). Either way well done to Hawk supporters in this thread. Showing a shitload more class than their team's coach did post game with his umpiring comment.

The man has a hot head, needs an ice bath more than Lewis does after an encounter with Daniel Pratt.

It's a shame, makes him look as bad as Dean Laidley.

 

[The Casey Cat]

The man has a hot head, needs an ice bath more than Lewis does after an encounter with Daniel Pratt.

It's a shame, makes him look as bad as Dean Laidley.

Indeed.

 

[ilovegussy]

i don't go for geelong but i have to say that are amazzzzzing! such amazing talent!

 

[clarkoscluster]

Just to steer this thread back in it's intended direction, I just want to say well done as well.

I'm not gonna offer any excuses. You are 16-1 for a reason... we pushed you all the way (yes I know you had players missing), but at the end of the day, your class and experience got you over the line. Too be honest, I couldn't be prouder of our effort last night, and I'm sure you guys felt the same, weathering a very rare storm. Good game, well played and I hope we don't meet in September (unless it's GF day).

Good luck for the rest of the season.

 

[Cohzee]

The man has a hot head, needs an ice bath more than Lewis does after an encounter with Daniel Pratt.

It's a shame, makes him look as bad as Dean Laidley.

Lewis needs a haircut.

 

[dtrainium]

Well done on Friday, you had the experience and class to get over the line. Whilst I genuinely believe we matched/beat you in general play for the majority of the game, our inability to put it on the scoreboard (goal-kicking) and some poor turnovers allowed you to do what you do best.

I'd say you only matched us in general play. You and your mate seem to think you should have won the game, but I think that if that last quarter was played 10 times, you'd only win twice, three times max, because of that class and composure that got us the win on Friday night in the first place. Footbal is not a game of what ifs and could have beens, your post pretty much says that if your kicking was more accurate you would have won the game, but if our general field kicking was better we would have won by shitloads, so it's really poor form trying to use excuses. The Hawks were put under pressure by Geelong and the big crowd, and couldn't win. You might win next time we meet if we meet again in September if you do handle the pressure a bit better, who knows, but you didn't win this game because you were beaten by a better side.

<3 dtrain

 

[Hood007]

Agree to disagree

Let's look forward to September.

Are you gonna spit out a whole bunch of pre game smack talk like you did this time?

 

[Pollywaffle]

Regardless of the argument about who was better on the night etc (which is open to debate) this thread has mentioned one aspect of game analysis that really annoys me. Lets say Franklin didn't miss the first shot at goal. That means that the ball . instead of being kicked out subsequently, is taken and bounced in the centre. Thereafter everything that happened in the game would also have been different .
So discussion about anything happening afterward, such as goals missed etc Becomes pointless. The whole game would then pan out in a totally different fashion. Didnt you guys pay any attention to Back to the future!!

 

[TBoyleSuperstar]

Regardless of the argument about who was better on the night etc (which is open to debate) this thread has mentioned one aspect of game analysis that really annoys me. Lets say Franklin didn't miss the first shot at goal. That means that the ball . instead of being kicked out subsequently, is taken and bounced in the centre. Thereafter everything that happened in the game would also have been different .
So discussion about anything happening afterward, such as goals missed etc Becomes pointless. The whole game would then pan out in a totally different fashion. Didnt you guys pay any attention to Back to the future!!

LOL, Back to the Future, The Doc and Marty McFly did teach us something after all!!!

I think the main things that Hawks supporters feel, much like myself, is that we had you guys on the hop for large parts of the game, but couldn't deliver the killer blow when needed. You guys did what good sides do, absorbed pressure and killed us when we erred, which unfortunatly was to often in pressure situations, especially in the last quarter. That is why you will no doubt win it again this year, as you playa as a team, know how to win big pressure games and can lift when needed.

Well done again, hope to meet you in the finals.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

I think in-field kicking (and shots in general play) are much more prone to influence from pressure than set shot kicks.

You kicked 5.1 from set shots <50m, <45 degrees, and we kicked 8.7 from the same. The league average is 80%. Misses to Franklin (x2), Roughead (x2), Ladson (x1), Brown (x2), Williams (x1). Of those 7, you'd normally expect to get 5 or 6 (for us 3-4). It was just a woeful day in front of goals.

FWIW Franklin is kicking at 52% in the "dead" side (>45 degree angle, >30m) - WAAAY in front of anyone else (he's also had 7x more shots from there than anyone else in the league - an amazing stat). He takes nearly 40% of his shots on goal from that position.

From "gimme spots" (<45 degree angle, <50m), Franklin kicks at 65% - the LEAGUE average is around 80%, and most forwards are in the high 80s, low 90s.

So if you want to "stop" Franklin, leave him unmarked 30m out, directly in front.

Personally I think it's a development/understanding thing from Franklin - he leads where the space is, so can be manipulated by a smart defence - you can't really stop him, but you can make him take tougher shots. It's a real chicken-and-egg thing though. He's more comfortable on the boundary on the "wrong" side than in front. He's more comfortable 50m out than close....but when defenders get on top, that's where he takes his shots from.

 

[dtrainium]

I think in-field kicking (and shots in general play) are much more prone to influence from pressure than set shot kicks.

You kicked 5.1 from set shots <50m, <45 degrees, and we kicked 8.7 from the same. The league average is 80%. Misses to Franklin (x2), Roughead (x2), Ladson (x1), Brown (x2), Williams (x1). Of those 7, you'd normally expect to get 5 or 6 (for us 3-4). It was just a woeful day in front of goals.

Physical pressure can influence in-field kicking yes, both sides were good at that. Scoreboard pressure, pressure from the 86k in the stadium, as well as your own mental insecurities can influence your set shots. Pressure is not necessarily always physical.

My reference to if we kicked better in general play was more to do with the fact that it is x, it's an unknown factor, it's a what if. It carries the same relevance as what if Hawthorns set shots were better. You can't expect players to be faultless when they play a game of football, if all sides were then what would happen? How football works is that some sides make less mistakes than others, use the ball better than others, have better set shot efficiency than others. That's how you win games, on what happens out on the field. You don't win games with what ifs.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

that's pretty well spot on dtrain. Less mistakes, better ball use, better accuracy = winning.

And that's what happened on Friday. While we won contested ball, and had to fight back from our rucks getting SMASHED (first time this season - yet I've not read a skerrick on that aspect of the game yet) to win the midfield battle, we were unable to put our advantage on the scoreboard - conversely when Geelong had chances, they converted more often than not.

 

[Shmoses]

(and FWIW, against us your biggest out was Milburn IMO).

disagree. we missed ablett and ling's hardness at the contests more than anything.

 

[whoknows]

disagree. we missed ablett and ling's hardness at the contests more than anything.

Nah, I think Milburn is right up there as our most important out. Campbell Brown wouldn't have touched the ball if he'd been in. And it became all the more important with Wojcinski out too - losing 2 of your back 6 does all sorts of things to your structure. I think we really missed his experience & cool head in the kickouts...

That said, say Ling would have reduced Mitchells influence by 20%, with Hodge having poor game he did, would be a big difference. Ablett's slack was picked up by Jimmy and the Joels, but we did miss his x-factor.

Impossible to say who was the biggest out, apart from the half-time BOG Chappy! No surprise we looked a lot more vulnerable in the second half.

So if Hawthorn wants to play 'ifs', I'd remind them about Chappy.... Hawthorn just better hope they don't increase the rushed behind penalty.

 

[ant0s]

disagree. we missed ablett and ling's hardness at the contests more than anything.

I would say we missed all 3 equally..

1. Ablett: especially in the 3rd quarter we lacked a spark, someone who could break the line and deliver a quality pass into the 50. His quality doesnt really need to be harped on. Hawthorn will not be able to stop his influence come finals. Sewell may the engine to run with Ablett, but Ablett's ability to shake his tagger is ridiculous.

2. Ling: nullifies the influence of the best Hawthorn midfielder. I cant stress his importance enough. Eg if he was on Sam Mitchell there is no way Sam would have got the same 32 possessions with the same efficiency with blood nut in his back pocket. Not to mention Lingers attacking ability especially on the counter if can get a few shots at goal up front. Linger has a nack of beating his opponent and getting alot of quality ball.

3. Milburn: There is absolutely no way Franklyn would have had 9 shots at goal if Dasher was playing. Now, im not saying that Buddy wouldnt be a big influence. But Milburn's specialty is reading the play and intercepting kicks into a Key Forwards path, his assistance in helping out Scarlo and Harlz was a major reason why we won last year. As a guess, Dasher wouldve cut back and stopped at least 2-3 of Franklyns shots on goal just with his courage to back into the contest AND by knowing exactly how to time his efforts. Obviously, meaning he can leave his direct opponent and help out his defenders whilst taking a correct gamble that his opponent will not be one-out and take an uncontested mark should they go to him.

I think that makes sense.

Hawthorn were a little underdone themselves so its fair to say they will only improve coming into finals. However with the return of Chapman for the whole game to add that little bit of class to half-forward, and even Wojak to add some dash to our defence.

Wojak especially could prove important in breaking the 'cluster' come finals. This was something that was a bit of a struggle in the final quarter when the Hawks were surging, creating many nervous moments when he were running it out.

All in all, its gonna be tough for Hawthorn to find the necessary artillery to win it this year. But they are only just heating up. Give them probably 2 years and a key position backman and they will not be denied.

 

[Brasil2007]

You kicked 5.1 from set shots <50m, <45 degrees, and we kicked 8.7 from the same. The league average is 80%. Misses to Franklin (x2), Roughead (x2), Ladson (x1), Brown (x2), Williams (x1). Of those 7, you'd normally expect to get 5 or 6 (for us 3-4). It was just a woeful day in front of goals.

You took a shot from every mark, whereas we didn't - more likely to handpass off, play on, or look for a better option. Plus this doesn't count the multiple times where players missed shots under no pressure in general play. I'd expect you to miss more set shots just because you are more likely to have more set shots. Besides 5.1 doesn't seem quite right anyway - Kelly missed one early on and Gamble had one touched from about 15m out, so that's two from set shots to start with.

Chapman was critical - he's been in terrific form the past month or six weeks. His absence was even more important with Ablett and Ling missing - these three guys regularly seem to find space inside 50. Ling would also make his opponent a lot more accountable. Milburn would do the same thing to whoever he was playing on in the backline, especially after last week.

Anyway, no real point debating it right now. It's an interesting philosophical question but that's about it.