In this thread we have identified what makes the Hawks the side they are. Things like skilled players, players that can play multiple positions, ability to stand up when it counts, footy smarts.

You then flick to the "changes for next week thread" and read the proposed changes.

We are so far off the pace yet some people still can't let go.

I remember when we tried emulating Brisbane in 2003 by targeting big-bodied midfielders. I remember when we tried emulating Geelong's attacking game plan in 2008-09. I remember Neeld trying to emulate Collingwood's boundary line game plan in 2012. None worked. I think we're done playing catch up.

You forgot professional corkers,kneedroppers, coathanger merchants amongst things they are allowed tog et away with ,that others ( exFreo ) cant.

You forgot professional corkers,kneedroppers, coathanger merchants amongst things they are allowed tog et away with ,that others ( exFreo ) cant.

i''ll grant you dockett that there is definitely too much togging in the hawthorn game plan

I like the thread, but I don't agree with the OP's fundamental premise that our gameplan is fatally flawed and needs to change in order to be competitive.

IMO, our issue isn't gameplan, it's personnel. We don't have enough skilled players, nor do we have any flexibility, nor have our players had enough time to work together as a team yet.

What I think makes Hawthorn so good is the way everything is second nature to them. They know where to bring the ball out from a kick in because they know the forwards will be leading when the time is right. Meanwhile with us Dunn (or whoever it is kicking in) is hesitant because they're looking for the right option to arise. I notice with Watts, he often gets the ball and knows where it is supposed to go but can't execute it quickly because the next piece in the puzzle hasn't fallen into place quickly enough.

I think the two biggest things we need to do to keep pushing up the ladder are:

1. Continue to play our core future players together so that they feed off each other, learn from each other, and become a true team
2. Adding to that core at trade/draft period by bringing in players to fill the obvious gaps on our list (half-back kicking skill, second ruck, second KPF, outside run, half-back flank run)

But I don't think changing the gameplan is on the cards.

Fascinating. Bomber Thompson was just asked on AFL 360 whether Paul Roos' game style is good for football. Robbo tried to get him to say it wasn't, but Bomber said, no, Roosy's style is not only stoppage football. He claimed Roos opened us up earlier in the year and that our ball movement has the capacity to be very quick. When they start to 'get it', Roosy will open us up even more. I mean, we knew this, but some on this thread have seemed to dispute it. We should expect next season to be scoring more heavily again.

Last year we were defensive-minded, worrying about lowering the opposition's weekly score.

This year we are trying to find a balance between defensiveness and offensiveness.

Next year we will look to increase our ball movement, by adding pace to our list in the off season and more skill.

Fascinating. Bomber Thompson was just asked on AFL 360 whether Paul Roos' game style is good for football. Robbo tried to get him to say it wasn't, but Bomber said, no, Roosy's style is not only stoppage football. He claimed Roos opened us up earlier in the year and that our ball movement has the capacity to be very quick. When they start to 'get it', Roosy will open us up even more. I mean, we knew this, but some on this thread have seemed to dispute it. We should expect next season to be scoring more heavily again.

Last year we were defensive-minded, worrying about lowering the opposition's weekly score.

This year we are trying to find a balance between defensiveness and offensiveness.

Next year we will look to increase our ball movement, by adding pace to our list in the off season and more skill.

Robinson's attack on us reeks of just watching one game (Brisbane) and not watching any others, which I think is common as I don't think too many people pay huge attention to Melbourne during the year.

IIRC no one was wondering if we were bad for football when we beat Geelong.

Robinson's attack on us reeks of just watching one game (Brisbane) and not watching any others, which I think is common as I don't think too many people pay huge attention to Melbourne during the year.

IIRC no one was wondering if we were bad for football when we beat Geelong.

I think this was more about Roos' game style influence on the competition (Sydney, Freo, Melbourne), rather than just an attack on Melbourne.

I like the thread, but I don't agree with the OP's fundamental premise that our gameplan is fatally flawed and needs to change in order to be competitive.

IMO, our issue isn't gameplan, it's personnel. We don't have enough skilled players, nor do we have any flexibility, nor have our players had enough time to work together as a team yet.

What I think makes Hawthorn so good is the way everything is second nature to them. They know where to bring the ball out from a kick in because they know the forwards will be leading when the time is right. Meanwhile with us Dunn (or whoever it is kicking in) is hesitant because they're looking for the right option to arise. I notice with Watts, he often gets the ball and knows where it is supposed to go but can't execute it quickly because the next piece in the puzzle hasn't fallen into place quickly enough.

I think the two biggest things we need to do to keep pushing up the ladder are:

• Continue to play our core future players together so that they feed off each other, learn from each other, and become a true team
• Adding to that core at trade/draft period by bringing in players to fill the obvious gaps on our list (half-back kicking skill, second ruck, second KPF, outside run, half-back flank run)

But I don't think changing the gameplan is on the cards.

Great post. Nailed it.

Just don't forget Salem.

Time to let go of a few more.

Great post. Nailed it.

Just don't forget Salem.

Time to let go of a few more.

What are you talking about? Are you suggesting we trade Salem? A highly skilled left-footer, who is tough at the contest and makes good decisions. He'd fit in nicely at Hawthorn and he fits in perfectly at Melbourne.

If we aren't following Hawthorns then whose damn blueprint are we following?
Oh...

Edited July 22, 201510 yr by The Song Formerly Known As

I hope we're following our own blueprint and not somebody else's. I thought that was the learning from this thread. We want to be inventive. I hope Goody has what it takes.

When talking about tough small forwards in the Puopolo mould, don't forget Kent either. Hard-at-it with pace and genuine goal sense. I think we overlook the difference he will make once fit and available for selection.

What are you talking about? Are you suggesting we trade Salem? A highly skilled left-footer, who is tough at the contest and makes good decisions. He'd fit in nicely at Hawthorn and he fits in perfectly at Melbourne.

Edited July 22, 201510 yr by Al's Demons

We've still got the red and blueprint from Schwabby.

Relax.

We've still got the red and blueprint from Schwabby.

Relax.

wouldn't a hawk's "blueprint" be a brownprint? or more accurately a skid-mark

wouldn't a hawk's "blueprint" be a brownprint? or more accurately a skid-mark

Helpful contribution as always, dc.

I hope we're following our own blueprint and not somebody else's. I thought that was the learning from this thread. We want to be inventive. I hope Goody has what it takes.

I think it is right that we want to be innovative, but we also need to be aware that most ideas that are considered to be innovative in the AFL are really just further advances on previous ideas. The three key innovations over the last 60 years have been the use of handball as an attacking weapon and play on from defence (invented by Len Smith and used by Barrissi), flooding (Rodney Eade) and formation defence (Alistair Clarkson). Innovations like Pagan’s Paddock and Wallace’s deep flood were just an evolution of Eade’s original idea. And the modern day press is a progression from Clarkson’s Cluster.

Innovation also needs to reflect the players at the coach’s disposal. You wouldn’t attempt to play a tall forward line if you had four Chris Dawes on your list. Likewise, you wouldn’t play without a ruckman if you had Todd Goldstien.

Moreover, it needs to be remembered that there are only two real ways to move the ball – kick and run and handball. And there is only two paths to goal – boundary and corridor. So the number of different game plans is relatively limited.

Edited July 22, 201510 yr by Fat Tony

I'm just waiting for a coach (preferably ours) to realise you don't have to have all your forwards in your own backline. If you reverse that trend and keep a couple of forwards in your own forward line at all times, you'll either have forwards who are unmanned and an easy target for the get out kick or you'll have the other team's defenders staying with them and therefore out of their own team's forward line and, guess what, away from their own goals where they can do damage.

Simplistic? Probably. Would it work? I'd like to find out.

I'm just waiting for a coach (preferably ours) to realise you don't have to have all your forwards in your own backline. If you reverse that trend and keep a couple of forwards in your own forward line at all times, you'll either have forwards who are unmanned and an easy target for the get out kick or you'll have the other team's defenders staying with them and therefore out of their own team's forward line and, guess what, away from their own goals where they can do damage.

Simplistic? Probably. Would it work? I'd like to find out.

Clarkson plays more forwards and Hawthorn gets a lot of goals over the back. It works because they are all quick.

I think it is right that we want to be innovative, but we also need to be aware that most ideas that are considered to be innovative in the AFL are really just further advances on previous ideas. The three key innovations over the last 60 years have been the use of handball as an attacking weapon and play on from defence (invented by Len Smith and used by Barrissi), flooding (Rodney Eade) and formation defence (Alistair Clarkson). Innovations like Pagans Paddock and Wallaces deep flood were just an evolution of Eades original idea. And the modern day press is a progression from Clarksons Cluster.

Innovation also needs to reflect the players at the coachs disposal. You wouldnt attempt to play a tall forward line if you had four Chris Dawes on your list. Likewise, you wouldnt play without a ruckman if you had Todd Goldstien.

Moreover, it needs to be remembered that there are only two real ways to move the ball kick and run and handball. And there is only two paths to goal boundary and corridor. So the number of different game plans is relatively limited.

I've always wondered why there isn't more innovation though. It seems most coaches are pretty conservative. For example, how would a team defend the following: we clear out our forward 50, pushing the rest of the forwards up to the wings, with the exception of Hogan. We have a one-on-one inside forward 50. If the opposition team lose the clearance, we have a one-on-one and if the ball hits the deck, it's up to our blokes to get back and offer support to Hogan.

The opposition could simply drop another defender back on Hogan, but we'd then have an extra number at the stoppage, which you'd hope, with smart decision making and spread, we'd be able to utilise to our advantage.

The other way the defending side could choose to combat this, is by having a defender playing midway between half forward and the goal square. Once we win the clearance, he zones off to the square to provide a two-on-one. If his team wins possession, he can provide run off half back instead.

Anyway, I don't see why something like this isn't tried. It's basically a slightly different take on Pagan's paddock, but if your mids use the ball well, it'd be very tough to defend.

Edited July 23, 201510 yr by AdamFarr

I've always wondered why there isn't more innovation though. It seems most coaches are pretty conservative. For example, how would a team defend the following: we clear out our forward 50, pushing the rest of the forwards up to the wings, with the exception of Hogan. We have a one-on-one inside forward 50. If the opposition team lose the clearance, we have a one-on-one and if the ball hits the deck, it's up to our blokes to get back and offer support to Hogan.

The opposition could simply drop another defender back on Hogan, but we'd then have an extra number at the stoppage, which you'd hope, with smart decision making and spread, we'd be able to utilise to our advantage.

The other way the defending side could choose to combat this, is by having a defender playing midway between half forward and the goal square. Once we win the clearance, he zones off to the square to provide a two-on-one. If his team wins possession, he can provide run off half back instead.

Anyway, I don't see why something like this isn't tried. It's basically a slightly different take on Pagan's paddock, but if your mids use the ball well, it'd be very tough to defend.

I think it is tried to some extent, but the game is so fast and rotations make it difficult to get set up. Also the congestion around the ball means the pressure is on the kicker is high and the third man up has a field day.

Our game plan is currently very similar to the Swans and Freo, which looks to have been worked out by Clarkson. A key point of the thread is that Roos needs to re-evaluate whether what he is trying to deliver has already been superseded. Personally I think it has and we need to inject some outside run and class into the list.

Watching the jobs they did on Freo and Sydney makes the 100 point spanking they handed out to us so much easier to stomach.

I share your sentiment though and believe that Goodwin might see the games projection a little differently than Roos.

Time will tell.

David King had an interesting segment on AFL 360 last night and they discussed how Hawthorn regularly go back only two meters off the mark and then kick on a 45 degree angle. He also highlighted how their forwards play from behind the formation defense.

David King had an interesting segment on AFL 360 last night and they discussed how Hawthorn regularly go back only two meters off the mark and then kick on a 45 degree angle. He also highlighted how their forwards play from behind the formation defense.

Yeah, it was about keeping the ball in motion the whole time. It also throws the opposition off and doesn't give them time to set up defensively. But it requires each and every Hawthorn player to know exactly where there are and where they should be at all times. They also must have the skill to execute these skills quickly and precisely, otherwise you can prevent Hawthorn from scoring.

Edited July 23, 201510 yr by AdamFarr