Having watched Hawthorn's disposal by foot today, I don't care how good a possible recruit is, how fast he can run, how far he can run, how high he can jump, or how nice he is to his mum, if he can't kick accurately on both feet I don't want him at Melbourne.

Hawthorn's very few turnovers won them the match today. How I envy them their disposal!

How I admire their running to position to receive pinpoint passes.

And how I resent our 'turnover champions'.

Compared with Hawthorn we're not even close.

Having watched Hawthorn's disposal by foot today, I don't care how good a possible recruit is, how fast he can run, how far he can run, how high he can jump, or how nice he is to his mum, if he can't kick accurately on both feet I don't want him at Melbourne.

Hawthorn's very few turnovers won them the match today. How I envy them their disposal!

How I admire their running to position to receive pinpoint passes.

And how I resent our 'turnover champions'.

Compared with Hawthorn we're not even close.

gysberts, cook, morton, bennell,

nope, kicking is second priority, after a hunger for the contest, which comes after the obvious, being able to play.

Is it that simple? I would think that using foot skills as your sole criterion is how you end up drafting James Strauss with a top 20 pick.

gysberts, cook, morton, bennell,

nope, kicking is second priority, after a hunger for the contest, which comes after the obvious, being able to play.

Mate, I've posted this several times over the last few years. Sure, you need to get the pill BUT we have been champions at giving it straight back. We are the worst disposers in history.

90% of good kicking is actually having a good option to kick to

They provide good hard leads into space for each other, and the kicker knows where to put the ball.

The hawks are better kicks because they work harder for each other.

Agree we don't seem to dispose well but isn't that because we lack talent and therefore are always under pressure?

Mate, I've posted this several times over the last few years. Sure, you need to get the pill BUT we have been champions at giving it straight back. We are the worst disposers in history.

recruit bennell again, if thats is the 1st priority, as he's a beautiful kick.

No, the 1st priority is that a player can play.

Then that they have the requisit desire & attitude to improve & a likelihood to become the best they can be.

followed by the courage to engage & to take the game on.

when the basic needs are all there, then look for the best skilled.

and after all the criteria, we need a balance of types as well.

BUT lets just forget the peter pans.

Is it that simple? I would think that using foot skills as your sole criterion is how you end up drafting James Strauss with a top 20 pick.

Maric too.

Agree we don't seem to dispose well but isn't that because we lack talent and therefore are always under pressure?

True but often it's because you're constantly under pressure that your disposal becomes erratic.

That said, we have a few in our team whose disposal is godawful and if it doesn't improve they simply won't get games under Roos.

90% of good kicking is actually having a good option to kick to

One could make a similar declaration regarding decision making, i.e. taking the right option.

One could make a similar declaration regarding decision making, i.e. taking the right option.

Yes, but too often with Melbourne there isn't a right option to choose because the players refuse to run to create space and an option for their teammates.

Yes, but too often with Melbourne there isn't a right option to choose because the players refuse to run to create space and an option for their teammates.

That too.

Having watched Hawthorn's disposal by foot today, I don't care how good a possible recruit is, how fast he can run, how far he can run, how high he can jump, or how nice he is to his mum, if he can't kick accurately on both feet I don't want him at Melbourne.

Hawthorn's very few turnovers won them the match today. How I envy them their disposal!

How I admire their running to position to receive pinpoint passes.

And how I resent our 'turnover champions'.

Compared with Hawthorn we're not even close.

Well that would count out most of Hawthorns team, apart from Mitchell they are pretty much all one sided players. Watching Gibson or Smith try and kick on their right is hilarious, they have no idea let alone any accuracy.

So what I have gleamed from this tread this morning is that the problem is not that we are poor kicks.

It is that we are a crappy team with Poor players.

Now there is surprise.

Leaving the jokes aside.

We have a few players who are poor kicks, the rest is IMO a large number who are just not AFL quality players.

Low skill levels in a number of areas .

Replace them with better players is the only way forward.

Takes a long time but it has taken us a decade to get down to 2013 and IMO five to get back to a Finals playing quality side.

Spot on guys. Turnovers are murder. I don't know what the stats are, but I'd be surprised if Melbourne didn't lead the competition from goals conceded from turnovers.

I do agree that, at times, the player with the ball turns it over because he has no-one to kick/handball to, so has to kick/handball to someone under pressure. Of course, poor disposal - slow/looping kicks/handballs/missing targets - doesn't help.

Particularly when moving forward. Freo reminded me a bit of the Demons in this regard. The forward structure was non existent at times. A Freo player would get the ball, look forward and see no-one there. Or a player outnumbered. Lake had an absolute picnic.

I was at the GF yesterday. It was a very poor game/spectacle. I hate the way Freo play.

FWIW I don't agree that Morton's disposal was good, or even OK.

Please excuse my assorted ramblings.

Spot on guys. Turnovers are murder. I don't know what the stats are, but I'd be surprised if Melbourne didn't lead the competition from goals conceded from turnovers.

I do agree that, at times, the player with the ball turns it over because he has no-one to kick/handball to, so has to kick/handball to someone under pressure. Of course, poor disposal - slow/looping kicks/handballs/missing targets - doesn't help.

Particularly when moving forward. Freo reminded me a bit of the Demons in this regard. The forward structure was non existent at times. A Freo player would get the ball, look forward and see no-one there. Or a player outnumbered. Lake had an absolute picnic.

I was at the GF yesterday. It was a very poor game/spectacle. I hate the way Freo play.

FWIW I don't agree that Morton's disposal was good, or even OK.

Please excuse my assorted ramblings.

I think for the QB game against Collingwood they scored 6 goals directly from turnovers.

Silvia was on around 45% for effective disposals that game...

Spot on guys. Turnovers are murder. I don't know what the stats are, but I'd be surprised if Melbourne didn't lead the competition from goals conceded from turnovers.

I do agree that, at times, the player with the ball turns it over because he has no-one to kick/handball to, so has to kick/handball to someone under pressure. Of course, poor disposal - slow/looping kicks/handballs/missing targets - doesn't help.

Particularly when moving forward. Freo reminded me a bit of the Demons in this regard. The forward structure was non existent at times. A Freo player would get the ball, look forward and see no-one there. Or a player outnumbered. Lake had an absolute picnic.

I was at the GF yesterday. It was a very poor game/spectacle. I hate the way Freo play.

FWIW I don't agree that Morton's disposal was good, or even OK.

Please excuse my assorted ramblings.

Don't disagree with you but I would add that I hate the way the MFC plays.

Any way that gets us to a GF is fine with me.

Playing ugly and winning sure beats playing ugly and losing every week.

As others have alluded to, bad structures or an unwillingness to work can make even the best kickers look bad.

interestingly both sides had a low (<70%) disposal efficiency %

surpisingly Hawthorn's was actually slightly lower than Dockers, but Hawks efficiency for scoring was obviously better (especially when you factor in Fro's out-of-bounds attempts)

Some of it can be put down to pressure but the strong winds played a big role

I noticed the num,ber of times that the hawks kicker had multiple options as the ran into space and worked hard also the number of times the player disposing of the ball shepherded the player he gave the ball to that is what provided the time for a better delivery, Second and third efforts were also noticeable

Both sides also attacked the ball and the player about to get the ball constantly As there were few times the umpires paid incorrect tackling or incorrect disposal the effort was usually rewarded

The insane work rate, tackling, physical efforts and ability to halve or win one on one contests were my impression from the grand final.

Remember it was a very windy day which made kicking hard. Most of the hawks better kicking was from half back where they are elite but also incredibly disciplined and structured. They always have a man for the switch and instinctively go for it.

Hawthorn are the best kicking side but it's only about 20% of the reason why they won the grand final.

The insane work rate, tackling, physical efforts and ability to halve or win one on one contests were my impression from the grand final.

Remember it was a very windy day which made kicking hard. Most of the hawks better kicking was from half back where they are elite but also incredibly disciplined and structured. They always have a man for the switch and instinctively go for it.

Hawthorn are the best kicking side but it's only about 20% of the reason why they won the grand final.

Interesting you say that 'master', I thought Freo's forward pressure was average yesterday. Geelong always apply a lot of pressure to Hawthorn's elite kickers from defence, particularly on their lefties, this is why they have a good record in recent times.

The game was won from Hawthorn's rebounders being able to set up play down the ground.

interestingly both sides had a low (<70%) disposal efficiency %

surpisingly Hawthorn's was actually slightly lower than Dockers, but Hawks efficiency for scoring was obviously better (especially when you factor in Fro's out-of-bounds attempts)

Some of it can be put down to pressure but the strong winds played a big role

somtimes the hawks bombed long to 40 out, appeared wasting the footy, but there may have been some rugby tactics mixed in there?

.... they didn't change it up to really attack, preferring to just keep controlling the contests, & gambling on more scoring than freo.

# bring on more rotation caps. quickly.

gysberts, cook, morton, bennell,

nope, kicking is second priority, after a hunger for the contest, which comes after the obvious, being able to play.

Gysberts was never an elite user of the ball and neither were the other three you've mentioned. It's strange you think they were.

90% of good kicking is actually having a good option to kick to

Yes and no.

It's an interesting one.

In my eyes, the reason Hawthorn are such a dominant force is because they have a a fantastic balance of players who can both play tough, hard contested footy and use the ball extremely well. They are also very disciplined and hard working which is inspired by Clarko and leaders such as Hodge, Mitchell and Lewis.

It's not one without the other. If you look at their list, they have a plethora of left footers who they deliberately recruited for their sublime skills. But these same players are also contested ball winners. If a core group of a squad possesses a strong blend of both attributes then you're laughing.

Having Guerra, Suckling; (although injured) and Birchall setting up play is an unbelievable luxury. These three, (especially Guerra and Suckling) can slice teams zones apart with their ability to execute a kick and hit a target amongst a zone of defenders. Birchall is generally a smart user as well and having Lake and Gibson as their two 'guerrilla' minders is a luxury cause they can both use the ball well too.

Their midfield core and rotating mids on average have great skills too. Mitchell, Hodge, Rioli, Lewis and Burgoyne are all great uses and win their own pill. Sewell is their only mid who is predominately a ball winner who doesn't possess the same kicking skills.

Hill and Smith are runners who don't display the same blend of attributes as others mentioned above but they are perfect wingers who gut run all day providing countless options. Hill is an elite user but obviously isn't a contested ball winner. Smith is a pure runner who doesn't possess the same foot skills and isn't a pure ball winner but wins enough ball on the outside to be a weapon.

Then you've got their twin towers in Buddy and Roughy who are extremely damaging when on song. Although Franklin had a quieter day yesterday, some of his pressure acts in close for a big guy were pretty impressive. He was throwing himself around a lot. They've got their third tall in Gunstan who's a deadeye-[censored] in front of goal. A manic forward pressure specialist in Puopolo and a great blend of half forwards/pockets who have the running ability to go through the midfield when needed. Breust, Shiels, Whitecross and Savage (when he gets a gig). These players are all goal kickers with decent skills and can also win their own ball.

What amplifies and really gets these guys playing at their best is confidence and camaraderie. They play team first football, play for each other and the jumper. They're extremely well drilled.

Melbourne lack in many of these areas and we all know why. It's a contribution of many factors but I'm excited about what Paul Roos + a beefed up recruiting and player development team, an injection of some quality mids and another crack at the draft can do.

We're a long way a way. But watching a team like Hawthorn develop from the list they had a decade ago really gets me excited about what could transpire for us over the next period of time.

Go Dees

Edited September 29, 201311 yr by stevethemanjordan