POST MATCH DISCUSSION - Round 11

[sue 8,430]

Hawthorn supporters could also grumble that they didn't get much out of their small forwards.

[Undeeterred 2,864]

1 hour ago, Demon Jack said:

Check out Bernie's response!

 

Yeah, burned by Bern. You mean the NBA playing Australian Olympian basketballer? Joe Ingles is a hell of a lot more famous outside the AFL-centric fishbowl that is Melbourne than our mate Bernie.

[Undeeterred 2,864]

9 hours ago, Rusty Nails said:

I doubt we will beat either the Saints or the Blues undee. Can only see a 'maybe' next week and a likely against the Suns.

That's 7 for the year same as last year which would mean we are tredding water after 3 years Into another rebuild.

While we continue to blood youngster after youngster we will continue to lose.

This club now needs to focus on a serious Injection of decent/solid older/more experienced Ex players from other clubs to beef up our stocks and win games that are/were very winnable when the heat Is on, like today's game.

We are too skewed to youth at all costs at this point. An average No. of games of about 65 most weeks (Hawks had approx 124 today lol), no mater how romantic/effective some here think It Is "getting games Into the kids" Is, Isn't going to win us enough games to threaten for finals.

Winning Is believing, winning builds belief.

Time to balance out this list with some quality (especially by foot) experienced talent a la Norf.

Forgot about the Suns. But yeah, I can't see more than 7-9 wins from here and am sick of 'improvement' being counted as a couple more wins than last year. At that rate, it will take us four of five years to get anywhere near the top 4, all going well. By which point the game will have circled around to a completely different style again, and we'll be left behind as we have been in the past.

[Lucifers Hero 37,043]

23 minutes ago, xarronn said:

 

Haven't seen the replay yet, and that's exactly what I was wondering, (although I don't think I am a little thick). This is the first post I've read referring to it. The difference in scoring shots paints a different picture to all the comments I have read on the post game thread up to this point

Can someone explain why there was such a difference if we were more than competitive?

I'll try:

1. Not many of Hawk's behinds were missed set shots so not poor kicking by them.

2. There were a number of rushed behinds by our defenders.

3. Many of the behinds credited to a Hawks player were opportunistic off the ground shots.

This was a result of the pressure and competitiveness from our (young troupe of) defenders.  We guarded the goal square really well and Hunt fearlessly threw himself at everything.

The comparison of inside 50 gives an indication of our competitiveness and how close the game really was:  Hawks 58, Demons 50.  We just couldn't get close enough to our goal square to capitalise with either goals or behinds. 

Make no mistake we were quite ferocious yesterday.

[Satyriconhome 9,982]

13 minutes ago, Undeeterred said:

Yeah, burned by Bern. You mean the NBA playing Australian Olympian basketballer? Joe Ingles is a hell of a lot more famous outside the AFL-centric fishbowl that is Melbourne than our mate Bernie.

I have never heard of Joe Ingles...but then again I don't follow basketball

[Demon Dynasty 15,451]

37 minutes ago, Deeoldfart said:

We played probably the best / most professional outfit in the competition, after a 6 day break and a road trip to Alice Springs, and with no Viney. Brayshaw and Salem.  I'm not making excuses, and I hate losing as much as anyone, but I take some heart from that game.  Still a work in progress, but the future looks rosy for our team of kids.

That's the point though Dee. When our very best/quality kids aren't available or out of form, we bring in more kids. I love the kids and some of them will be our future and it's exciting and romantic. But the difference between their performances on any day and their best (like norf)/worst(like last week etc) is too huge to take so many into matches like yesterday. Might work against similar lists that are as inexperienced like the Lions (66.4 ave games per player v us @ 57.9). 

We need more of a balance at the 100/150+ game mark to start winning more consistently and finish off games like yesterday and have any chance of a finals berth next year.

Even with a few of their gun players out, the Hawks have a great spread...

Hawthorn	Games	Melbourne
6	- 50	11
2	50 - 99	6
7	100 -149	3
7	150+	2

By the time some of the kids 'begin' to mature (not all will make it past 100 games) we will again be losing our only experienced/mature minded players (from yesterday) like Vince/Jones and will then need to wait years for the next lot of "kid" recruits to mature and by the time they're ready...rinse and repeat. The end of this year needs some serious focus on 'trading in' some experienced older heads and mature bodies (who are AFL standard by foot, can lower eyes and hit targets/kick accurately for goal...no hackers pls).

Edited June 5, 2016 by Rusty Nails

[Bitter but optimistic 21,254]

For me the greatest oddity about the game was how we were kept in it by the consistently outstanding efforts of only 3 players - Vince, Tyson and Jones.

Gawn won hit outs but the conditions did not suit big mark taking around the ground. There were however, enough cameos from a number of players to give me great confidence for the upcoming game against the filth.

Ollie choo choo and Petracca both continued to give glimpses of the players they will become. Omac showed a bit and I'm guessing he will continue to be persevered with. His more experienced brother still causes heart flutters from time to time. Trengove did enough to suggest that also will become a fixture in our midfield rotation. He will only get better. Hunt and Wagner add to the list of players who simply need more experience.

Our forwards were poor but, again so was much of our delivery. Dawes was off the pace and continues to be an enigma. He is a terrific runner and competitor but his marking is poor. However, if reports about Pedo and pneumonia are correct then Dawes will have time to reestablish himself and find some form. At his best he is creative and damaging.

Jeffy was very poor and also did not like the slippery ball. However, is the type of player who will bounce back and kick a bagfull. It may well be next Monday.

 

[Ethan Tremblay 28,391]

2 hours ago, Demon Jack said:

Check out Bernie's response!

 

Why does a chicken plucker have a problem with Bernie?

[Biffen 12,326]

4 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

I thought he was a chicken farmer. 

That was a fowl comment Ethan.

 

[btdemon 475]

A hell of a lot to like out of that game. Vince, Jones, Tyson, Oliver, Gawn were great.

Petracca is showing more and will steadily get better and show more magic.

Watts had the best attack on the ball i have seen from him. He is also trying to take them on. I am happy for him to do this as much as possible. He was quieter in the second half in terms od disposals but what he did was mostly great.

Despite getting 19 possies, I think Trenners will have to adjust the way the game has increased in tempo since he last played. I am hopeful he is smart and determined enough to become a valuable player again.

Hogan, Jeffy and Harmes didn't do enough but we still had scoring potency, not enough, mind you, but we were still in that game until about halfway through the final quarter. 

Jetta continues to be our most reliable and smartest defender.

Frost is an athlete and not a footballer but I think he is worth persisting with in the backline providing the coaches give hime very clear tuition. He does need to learn how to kick.

Stretch is a bit too light but goes in. What I like about him is he has, discipline, footy smarts and doesn't do too much wrong. I feel good when he has the ball.

Dawes was not great but again I would expect that he will get better and the forward structure looks potentially better with him there.

We were harder at the contest than the Hawks for most of the game, in without Viney. Albeit, the wet day did suit our slower inside mids.

Considering the players that were down, I think we did alright. 

The young players witnessed Hawthorn demonstrate how to win tight games. Hopefully the coaching panel points this out. Our young brigade are different from the list who experienced humiliating defeat week after week. They need to learn from Hawthorn, the Swans etc. and will.

I was very disappointed to lose it but think we are moving in the right direction.

 

 

[beelzebub 22,225]

9 minutes ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

For me the greatest oddity about the game was how we were kept in it by the consistently outstanding efforts of only 3 players - Vince, Tyson and Jones.

Gawn won hit outs but the conditions did not suit big mark taking around the ground. There were however, enough cameos from a number of players to give me great confidence for the upcoming game against the filth.

Ollie choo choo and Petracca both continued to give glimpses of the players they will become. Omac showed a bit and I'm guessing he will continue to be persevered with. His more experienced brother still causes heart flutters from time to time. Trengove did enough to suggest that also will become a fixture in our midfield rotation. He will only get better. Hunt and Wagner add to the list of players who simply need more experience.

Our forwards were poor but, again so was much of our delivery. Dawes was off the pace and continues to be an enigma. He is a terrific runner and competitor but his marking is poor. However, if reports about Pedo and pneumonia are correct then Dawes will have time to reestablish himself and find some form. At his best he is creative and damaging.

Jeffy was very poor and also did not like the slippery ball. However, is the type of player who will bounce back and kick a bagfull. It may well be next Monday.

 

What the hell are you up to BBO  displaying with aplomb perception and observations.  Back to the esoteric  and eccentric nature of bananaland for you 

[Biffen 12,326]

5 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

What the hell are you up to BBO  displaying with aplomb perception and observations.  Back to the esoteric  and eccentric nature of bananaland for you 

There are brief moments when the alcohol hasn't warped his brain and he has the common ability to make dull footballing observations like all the other intellectual plodders here.

Edited June 5, 2016 by Biffen

[Watts the matter 1,235]

54 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

I'll try:

1. Not many of Hawk's behinds were missed set shots so not poor kicking by them.

2. There were a number of rushed behinds by our defenders.

3. Many of the behinds credited to a Hawks player were opportunistic off the ground shots.

This was a result of the pressure and competitiveness from our (young troupe of) defenders.  We guarded the goal square really well and Hunt fearlessly threw himself at everything.

The comparison of inside 50 gives an indication of our competitiveness and how close the game really was:  Hawks 58, Demons 50.  We just couldn't get close enough to our goal square to capitalise with either goals or behinds. 

Make no mistake we were quite ferocious yesterday.

 

Disagree massively with number 1, they missed many easy set shots. This Hawthorn team is nothing like the team of the last 3 years. They are a 5th - 8th team and we should have done better. To many passengers. 

[beelzebub 22,225]

1 minute ago, Biffen said:

There are brief moments when the alcohol hasn't warped his brain and he has the common ability to make dull footballing observations like all the other intellectual plodders here.

must make him feel odd....to be temporarily  common !!

[praha 10,279]

1 hour ago, Roost It said:

Its the best we've played all year

We've actually played well against North, Bulldogs and Hawks. Our most disappointing losses have come against the Bombers, Port, and Saints. If we played those three the way we player the former trifecta, we'd be 8-3.

Not sure about you folk but I'm learning a lot about this team this year. We have the cattle now. It might take another 12 months but we have the cattle.

[Lucifers Hero 37,043]

17 minutes ago, Watts the matter said:

Disagree massively with number 1, they missed many easy set shots. This Hawthorn team is nothing like the team of the last 3 years. They are a 5th - 8th team and we should have done better. To many passengers. 

How many?  3 missed from the 3 free kicks for ducking into the tackler all dead in front...got what they deserved and nothing to do with competitiveness.

How many others?

The original question was about score (behinds) differential and competitiveness.  Do you have an answer or just prefer to nit pick that of other posters and offer platitudes like 'we should have done better' or 'to(o) many passengers' instead?   

Edited June 5, 2016 by Lucifer's Hero

[Guest]

When we lose, we often unthinkingly rant about how the players 'didn't try'. (I have been guilty of this at times)
This is not the case anymore (besides one glaring example in round 2). I feel that a lot of our losses have come not from a lack of effort but from a lack of execution or technique. This is a HUGE step forward from where we were 3 years ago.
Desire is something that is innate. Skills can be improved and heads can become wiser with games played.
There is light at the end of this tunnel at last!

[Lucifers Hero 37,043]

4 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Some NBA idiot has a go at our Bernie on twitter saying: 'Bernie is garbage'! 

Loved that Big Tex Walker weighed in to support his mate!

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/bernie-vince-fires-back-at-australian-nba-player-joe-ingles-on-twitter/news-story/4a182a0b94ffd66e24e7a543c68a0e2d

Ingles has seen the error of his ways and apologised!  A revised article: http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/bernie-vince-fires-back-at-australian-nba-player-joe-ingles-on-twitter/news-story/4a182a0b94ffd66e24e7a543c68a0e2d

✔ @Joeingles7

Apologies @bvince23 - I'm just a passionate Hawker who was fired up over your tangle with Smith. Heat of the moment. All good

Must have got a lot of heat for his dumb tweet!

Edited June 5, 2016 by Lucifer's Hero

[Binmans PA 26,094]

3 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

You're a perplexing poster yourself, Adam.  I do agree with the above, yet I find it interesting that you're happy to get behind O Mac, yet Dawes comes in for one game and you take the time to smash him, even though he worked his backside off all day and straightened us up a bit.  Would have thought you could give the fella some time seeing as it was his first game back for the year.

Dawes is 27 year old premiership player, who despite coming back from injury and playing in difficult marking conditions, has demonstrated now over a period of time at Melbourne that he can't take marks overhead, runs to the wrong places and get consistently gets burnt off on the rebound. He's had more than ample chances to improve his game and he hasn't.

Oscar McDonald on the other hand is a young KPD who needs time to develop and is improving with every game. His flaws are still present, but he's already a better kick than his brother. He needs to work on his decision making and core strength/strength in the contest.

2 hours ago, Webber said:

Just what I was thinking Wiseblood. There's a certain lack of objectivity in his polarity of opinions on Dawes and OMac. I thought they both played their roles yesterday. OMac is tracking very well relative to his height and age, but will take time, and it's time that the selectors are clearly prepared to give him. Dawes mobility and physicality is going to be a big boost to our structure if he can stay on the park for the rest of the season. 

I'd argue Dawes does the exact opposite to our structure. He hampers it. When Pedersen plays he takes the second ruck duties, when Dawes plays Watts still has to take second ruck duties. This takes Watts away from our forwardline. The guy who's kicked the second-most goals for us.

Dawes doesn't offer enough. He's in a similar mould to his ex-team mate Travis Cloke. He's too one dimensional - he's not multi-positional, which is something Roos has tried to breed in this group. 

I would have agreed previously when posters would say Roos clearly likes him and would pick him first. However, with the game style we have now, we've no room for a one-dimensional leading forward who can't mark and rarely hits the scoreboard. The 'Dawes straightens us up' rhetoric is also another example of flawed group-think.

[Red and Bluebeard 2,033]

I sat next to a Hawks supporter yesterday who was keen to talk, and had a good knowledge of the game. He said Viney was his favourite non-Hawks player, and that he was both disappointed not to see him play and very happy that he was missing the game against the Hawks. We chatted away during the game, but towards the end he commented that he was very impressed with both the Melbourne defence and the general spirit shown by the side. I think we agreed that the difference in the game was that the Hawks were cleaner and more organised when it counted, and made less mistakes in the critical moments. But he left impressed with our improvement.

[olisik 4,060]

19 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

Game, set and match then.  A few fans at the game thought he was ordinary so that must seal the deal.

Jesus are you listening to yourself? After all this time Dawes has come back in and still can't take a mark which is a taboo on this site and you are still trying to defend him. FMD 

The turnovers caused by him not taking posession shoot us in the foot time and time again.

 

[Binmans PA 26,094]

2 hours ago, xarronn said:

 

Haven't seen the replay yet, and that's exactly what I was wondering, (although I don't think I am a little thick). This is the first post I've read referring to it. The difference in scoring shots paints a different picture to all the comments I have read on the post game thread up to this point

Can someone explain why there was such a difference if we were more than competitive?

Sorry x, what I meant by my thick comments were if you'd seen the game and drew that conclusion.

Hawthorn were cleaner and more efficient going forward, despite (I thought) our midfield dominance. But a lot of scores came from rushed behinds or pressured kicks from tighter angles. Our midfielders and defenders did a really good job of pressing the opposition and ensuring they didn't get an abundance of easy shots at goal. Although there were a couple of what I would call 'soft' goals conceded on the day.

[Wiseblood 24,636]

Just now, olisik said:

Jesus are you listening to yourself? After all this time Dawes has come back in and still can't take a mark which is a taboo on this site and you are still trying to defend him. FMD 

The turnovers caused by him not taking posession shoot us in the foot time and time again.

 

Yeah, he totally cost us the game.  Jesus and FMD indeed.

 

[Wiseblood 24,636]

Just now, AdamFarr said:

Dawes is 27 year old premiership player, who despite coming back from injury and playing in difficult marking conditions, has demonstrated now over a period of time at Melbourne that he can't take marks overhead, runs to the wrong places and get consistently gets burnt off on the rebound. He's had more than ample chances to improve his game and he hasn't.

Oscar McDonald on the other hand is a young KPD who needs time to develop and is improving with every game. His flaws are still present, but he's already a better kick than his brother. He needs to work on his decision making and core strength/strength in the contest.

I'd argue Dawes does the exact opposite to our structure. He hampers it. When Pedersen plays he takes the second ruck duties, when Dawes plays Watts still has to take second ruck duties. This takes Watts away from our forwardline. The guy who's kicked the second-most goals for us.

Dawes doesn't offer enough. He's in a similar mould to his ex-team mate Travis Cloke. He's too one dimensional - he's not multi-positional, which is something Roos has tried to breed in this group. 

I would have agreed previously when posters would say Roos clearly likes him and would pick him first. However, with the game style we have now, we've no room for a one-dimensional leading forward who can't mark and rarely hits the scoreboard. The 'Dawes straightens us up' rhetoric is also another example of flawed group-think.

While I can't argue his marking abilities, which can sometimes leave much to be desired, I would argue against what I've bolded.  I don't think I've ever seen him run to the wrong place or hamper a contest, in fact I think he is quite good in this area, and he certainly isn't the last KP player to be burnt off on the rebound.  I find he works hard defensively and has laid some big tackles and put on plenty of pressure in his time at the club.  He certainly put on more pressure than both Kent and Harmes yesterday.

Plus I think he does straighten us up.  He takes some pressure off Hogan, gets to the right spots and he has the ability to rotate through the FF and CHF positions.

As I said, I can't argue that his marking leaves something to be desired, and he doesn't hit the scoreboard enough, but at this point in time he is more valuable to our side in it than out of it.

And stop with the flawed 'group-think' stuff.  It's silly.  A few posters taking a different view doesn't make it 'group-think' and you shouldn't classify it as such.

[Binmans PA 26,094]

1 hour ago, Wiseblood said:

While I can't argue his marking abilities, which can sometimes leave much to be desired, I would argue against what I've bolded. I don't think I've ever seen him run to the wrong place or hamper a contest, in fact I think he is quite good in this area, and he certainly isn't the last KP player to be burnt off on the rebound.  I find he works hard defensively and has laid some big tackles and put on plenty of pressure in his time at the club.  He certainly put on more pressure than both Kent and Harmes yesterday.

Plus I think he does straighten us up.  He takes some pressure off Hogan, gets to the right spots and he has the ability to rotate through the FF and CHF positions.

As I said, I can't argue that his marking leaves something to be desired, and he doesn't hit the scoreboard enough, but at this point in time he is more valuable to our side in it than out of it.

And stop with the flawed 'group-think' stuff.  It's silly.  A few posters taking a different view doesn't make it 'group-think' and you shouldn't classify it as such.

Yesterday was a very clear example of Dawes doing this a number of times. We had a very good view on it from the forward pocket. He kept being caught on the wrong side of the ground. Like I said in my earlier post, if it was under instruction, okay, but if not he wasn't where he should have been, that is, up the line to provide a contest. Of course, he was there often, but he just seemed not to understand where he should be multiple times in the new game style. I found it quite worrying.

Let's agree to disagree. But if we get more of the same from him next week, I'll be calling for his head again. He should only play when Pedersen is injured and Weideman and Hulett remain non match-ready.

Edited June 5, 2016 by AdamFarr