Akum

Main problems with Flash in the midfield are: * He doesn't have much of a tank; great burst speed, but not sustained running like ... god I hate to say this ... Harvey (I feel so unclean). * He doesn't have much physical strength, because of his size - these two combined mean that he's at a huge physical disadvantage when it comes to shaking a tag. But the killer is ... * How the team makes it so damn difficult for him. At stoppages, Jamar drops it at his feet where Moloney is. If we get first possession from a stoppage, it's almost always an unguided kick from the middle of a pack; we hardly ever put it to the edge of the pack to exploit Davey's burst speed and skilful delivery. He's a very damaging outside mid, but at a physical disadvantage as an inside mid, and we don't yet even know how to use an outside mid adequately. Maybe this might change if we get guys like Gysberts, Scully & McKenzie back, providing that we give them enough time on the ball. * For most other teams, he is the only Demon who needs a hard tag, because he is the only one who can bring so many others into the game if he gets away from them. One day we'll have other mids who will need a hard tag - Scully, Trengove, Gysberts for starters - but until then, it's Flash and only Flash. And he never gets blocked for and protected by teammates in the way that Judd & Ablett do. In 2014, oppositions will have to tag Scully, Gysberts & Trengove & perhaps Sylvia, who will be just as damaging as Davey.

Note that the midfield is central to all three forms of attack. For quick transition out of defence, the midfield has to present. If they don't, it gets stuck in the defensive 50. This depends on speed & smart running & fast precise ball movement & decision-making in all parts of the ground, and on both the ball carrier and ball receiver (and possibly the next 2 or 3 receivers) being in motion; if any of them are static, it collapses in a heap. For clearances, it's obvious. A quick and well-directed clearance will unsettle any defence, with or without power forwards. The power forwards mentioned are all mobile enough to find space, and I'd argue that more goals are scored on a fast break by finding a forward in space or kicking it to advantage in a one-on-one contest than by "crashing a pack". In other words, by a purposeful delivery into the forward line, rather than an aimless "kick to position". This doesn't need to be coached; you either have good clearance players or you don't and you need to get them; or in our case, develop them. The forward defence requires structures and plans & being well-drilled, so that everybody knows what they should be doing in relation to everybody else. But the absolute essential is that the midfield has to cover the midfield space, to deprive the defence trying to clear the ball of any easy "get-out-of-jail" options. If there are 3 opposing midfielders free in the centre square, no amount of forward pressure is going to stop the ball getting to them eventually. If the backs don't have a low-risk option, it gives the forwards that half-a-second hesitation to exert real or implied pressure. So midfielders have to be good at transitions, good at clearances, and good at covering midfield space. It might be an interesting exercise to map out each of our mids (including the rucks) against these three parameters, based on the three forms of attack, and compare them to other clubs. We've certainly improved immensely all ove the ground since 2008. But I don't think our midfield - in the absence of Scully, McKenzie, Gysberts & Morton - has improved anywhere near as much.

I have not the slightest doubt that Jetta will be fine, and that we have the best, tho' the least flashy, of the Jettas. But in the past, when he's played a bad game, he seems to lose his mojo for a while, and only gets it back by going back to Casey & his 3rd or 4th game is a great one that demands promotion. When he's good, he's the equal of any of our young guns. But after Sunday he'll need to get his confidence back.

Can't believe that we lost a game because we were comprehensively smacked in the midfield, and some want to drop forwards! And we lost because some of our senior players & bigger bodies let us down, so they have to bear some of the blame! Possession stats have been used to argue for Jetta, Bennell & Maric to go - well, a number of our leaders weren't any better, and they're the ones who let us down. I love Jonesy, but whether he was playing "run-with" or an attacking role on Sunday, he was not good enough, especially compared to Bail. And I love the Jet, but his confidence must be shot after that performance, and in the past he's gone back to Casey & played some good games & come back to the seniors breathing fire. So Jetta has to go, but it's Jones & not Maric (or Petterd - good grief!) who goes too. As everybody is saying, in comes Gys & Wona. Watts got 6 & 9 possessions, but one of our "mature-bodied" forwards only got 5 & 5, so if any forward has to go, it's Dunn. He could be sub (& thus put "on notice"), or could even go out altogether for either Morton (preferably) or if another "mature body" is needed, Bate. One more thing. I don't know where Moloney goes when he's not on the ball, probably to the bench. So instead of 70-80% of game time on the ball & 20-30% on the bench, I'd like to see him share 50/50 with Grimes, on the ball & off HBF. This is partly to get Grimes on the ball, and also to find somewhere for Moloney (who only got 2 handballs more than Watts on Sunday, not nearly good enough for our number 1 midfielder) to make an effective contribution but not on the ball - he could be very effective as a hard-hitting attacking HBF who could be thrown onto the ball, so I'd like to see how he goes there. If Moloney can only play on the ball or nowhere, it puts us in a bind if he's having a bad game & we're getting smacked in the midfield. Of course there's no way he deserves to be dropped from the team, but if he's having a bad game, we have to be able to switch him somewhere to allow somebody else to replace him on the ball. It really bothers me that a number of "mature-bodied" others could have been tried on the ball on Sunday - Green, Grimes, Dunn, even Bartram - but they weren't, and I can't help but wonder whether we were stymied by Moloney's lack of flexibility.

I'm still concerned that we were able to do nothing when we were put under pressure. Or did we need to wait until a break (3/4 time) before remedial action can be taken? This thread is interesting. If we need more "big bodies" on the ball, that can be done (or even Dunn). There's also Green, Grimes, Bartram, Petterd. We don't lack options, it's just that they're not being used. This year the midfield is just so important, for every team but especially for us. Losing badly because we're getting smashed in the midfield does nothing for the development of any of our young guns (except perhaps Tapscott & Martin in defence where they're seeing far too much of the ball). We need a "get out of jail" strategy for when we're getting smashed in the midfield. On Sunday we had nothing. The most concerning comment on the weekend was the one that we "didn't expect" the Hawks to over-run us like they did. No wonder we didn't have a strategy in place to counter it. I think strategically we've got a hell of a long way to go.

Good thread NB. Conversely, what makes it so much easier for forwards to keep the ball in the forward 50 is if a defender with the ball looks up & can see none of his midfielders free because they're all covered by the opposing midfielders, so they hesitate. It's impossible for forwards to keep it in if a defender looks up & can see 3 of his mids on their own in the middle of the ground.

Another great post. Agree totally with RR's opening post, and I'd like to comment on your other points: 1. What game plan we have is aimed at zone-busting, and for that, we do as well as anybody, as shown in the second quarter. In the second quarter, we totally disrupted their whole structure, which is no mean feat. We have an attacking game plan which is a beauty; we have no defensive game plan. But it totally and absolutely depends on our weakest link ... 2. ...THE MIDFIELD. When we were breaking even or winning the midfield, we had them on the run. I'll say it again, when we won the midfield, we were able to totally disrupt the structure of a team that lives & dies on its structure. But no defensive game plan can stand up against getting so comprehensively smashed in clearances, both centre bounces or around the ground. Can't understand people bagging the defence, they were under sustained pressure because in the 3rd quarter we hardly won a clearance. And until the FD realises that the centre bounce combination of Moloney + Jones + a tagger is not our best but our WORST combination, we will continue to get smashed in clearances. What bothers me is that if we ARE getting smashed in the clearances, we seem to be powerless to do anything about it. We didn't seem to fire a shot (Grimes or Dunn onto the ball anyone?) to try to stop it. When we win the midfield, our attacking game-plan can be devastating. When we lose the midfield, we can still attack enough to make it competitive. But no game plan will stand up to getting absolutely smashed in the midfield like we were after half time. 3. For a kick-out, if you can't hit someone on their own, the tactic is to pick a spot to force a stoppage in a place that's going to hurt you the least. A lot of the "implied pressure" from kick-ins was that forcing a stoppage meant that we would turn it over anyway. It's the midfield that is supposed to transition from defence to attack (one reason why they're called the MIDfield) and they went totally missing so we had no transition. We lose structure too easily, but only because we get beaten too easily with our 2008 midfield - we never lose our structure when we're winning the midfield! 4. When they subbed Lewis for Renouf (a midfielder for a ruck), from then on they were able to smash us in the midfield, no matter how many taps Jamar won. Unfair to blame Maric (replacing Jetta - like for like) for not having had a similar effect. It stands or falls on the midfield. We could have comparatively the most efficient & effective defence & forward line in the comp, but if we don't improve our worst-in-comp midfield, we're going nowhere.

By the way, note that the Swans beat the Bombers, and at ANZ Stadium where they haven't played well in the past. Maybe last week was a better effort than it looked.

I reckon a spy at training just shows we've really got 'em worried. It does far more for the spyee (us) than it does for the spyer (them).

Yep, we've really stepped up big time. If we can keep moving the ball, we'll get this. If they start kicking straighter we'll be in trouble though. Listening to the radio, there's some been quiet - Moloney, Petterd, Jurrah to some extent. Davey, Bail, Tapscott, Grimes, Jamar been really good by the sound of it.

Maybe they could have each free-to-air network show one H&A game every week, and the one that does it the best gets to do all the finals. Incentive scheme.

Wow, 9.8 to 2.5 in the last half! Can't wait for the details.

As I've said, I have a soft spot for the Aints & I think a lot of Sam Fisher & don't like the Toigs at all. But in this case Fisher got the ball & tried to "take 'em on" & took a few paces & tried to break a tackle & get clear before he was grabbed & his arm held so he couldn't dispose by hand. If you take 'em on & you're nailed, you're gone. I agree that generally they're horrible at it, but last night they got the distinction right between genuine & fake attempts to get rid of the ball.

Surprised how soft and slow Dal Santo & Montagna were last night. Surprised because I'd always considered them hard & fast. I've had a soft spot for the Saints over the years (my grade 6 teacher was Bob Murray) but they will come right back to the field without Hayes.

I thought the umpires got it right tonight. If you have the ball and you're tackled, you have to make a genuine attempt to get rid of it, wherever you are. Nothing annoys me more than a player jumping on the ball & holding it in or making a "pseudo-attempt" that's so faked it's obvious to everybody that they're playing for a ball-up. I think the umps tonight pinged the most obvious fakes, but if there was doubt they gave the benefit to the guy with the ball. Hope it continues. Jeez, wouldn't mind playing the Aints at the moment.

The thing about Tappy is that he brings some really important qualities to the team that we really need - strength & hardness, ability at contested footy, great disposal, and willingness & ability to take the game on. These are important additions to the team's mix of abilities. As someone suggested, he just won't be played where his lack of pace & agility will be a headache for us. They're not going to just blindly pick him on HBF every week. Against Carlton, for example, we'd be insane to expect him to keep either Betts or Garlett under control. But he could really get amongst their defence and create havoc. So, like a number of his teammates, there will need to be some thought at selection about where he plays, and on whom, so that we use his assets to our advantage and don't get exposed by his deficiencies. He's not alone in that.

Last year we moved up from "absolutely belted" to "honourable loss" against Hawks. Practice match was "honourable loss" too. If we're going to make progress, Hawthorn is the sort of team where we need to turn "honourable loss" into "close win". I'm expecting "honourable loss", but there's definitely a good chance that we can do better, if we keep up the last quarter form and kick straighter. Which is certainly not beyond our capabilities.

As an aside, I was surprised at the number of times Col hit the ball in traffic at pace & well-balanced and just fumbled the first touch, which meant that instead of getting clear he had to stop and scramble it out under pressure. It's something he's normally so good at, but it was just slightly off for him on Sunday.

Rpfc, just asking the question of whether percentages - i.e. "for" divided by "against" multiplied by 100 - might be more useful than differentials for clearances, i50s etc? Mainly because they could be compared with our score percentage in a meaningful way. For example, if our percentage on the ladder was 110 but our i50 percentage was 90, they can be compared. This of course would mean that we're not getting it in enough, but we're efficient when we do. But perhaps our greater efficiency is because we're scoring more off turnovers & breakaways (which I think we do) or we're doing it with more purpose rather than bombing aimlessly, which just reflects our style of game, so that getting it inside 50 more often may not make much difference. On the other hand, if our i50 differential was -10, it's hard to know what it means, other than we need to do better. Not sure if I'm explaining this well, but what's your thoughts?

I'm sure Ricky's lack of match fitness was a large part of the reason why he was sub, though. Not to say he wouldn't have got through 4 quarters if he'd had to, just that it's been so long since he played. And if he'd been on the bench, maybe with rotations he might have only had 40% game time anyway, and restricted the total number of rotations. Actually, sub might be good for a first game back after a long layoff, especially for running players, because many players struggle to make it through a whole game after a layoff. This applies to Gysberts for this week; perhaps Morton the same in a few weeks time. Running players who would normally be best 22, first game back after a layoff, may be more effective as a sub (& coming on fresh when everyone else is tired) than in the starting 21 over the course of a game. For a player in this situation, sub could be better than bench.

This. IMO his decision-making is excellent, but it's his execution that lets him down at times. That will only improve.

Carey, Brereton, Kernahan, Salmon et al had fully developed bodies by the time they were stars in their late 'teens or early 20s. It's not the chronological age that's the key factor here, it's physical development. What you say about different game is true, but there's the physical development factor too. Another factor is that guys like Lloyd, who wasn't fully developed, was getting hit on leads by some very good delivery. Our delivery to tall forwards is still not good. It's premature to make any definitive judgments on Jack (or any tall forward for that matter) until his body fully develops and until they start getting reasonable delivery.

Happy to put my hand up as someone who doubted Moloney's value to the team. I think it's significant that oppositions will put a hard tag on Davey or Sylvia or even Scully, but never Moloney, because he's so one-dimensional & predictable that he doesn't do them damage no matter how many possessions & clearances he gets. However, he was a very different player on Sunday. Instead of "see-ball get-ball run-in-straight-line-towards-goal kick-long" every time, he added new dimensions to his game. He didn't always just try to crash through the thickest part of the pack, he actually mixed it up a lot, running around the pack rather than through it, looking sideways rather than straight ahead, and even lowering his eyes & hitting targets, by hand or by foot. This is an entirely new Moloney, not just the old model doing it better, and I sense a large dollop of Scott West into the mix in terms of clearance strategies. If this is going to be how he plays from now on, he's going to be much more damaging and will definitely need a hard tag. And he'll be much more difficult to tag than Davey etc because of his strength.

I don't think anybody's making excuses. This was a good first-up effort (especially considering what we're used to in Round 1), but not great, and I don't think anybody has said it was "good enough". Could it have been better? Of course! Do we need to improve? Of course we do! For some like yourself, the result is the be-all and end-all & nothing else matters; it's black and white (and a draw is "black" because we didn't win). Nothing wrong with that. But for those of us looking for an improvement upon last year in terms of performance, there was a lot to like. As Bailey hinted after the match, that's the sort of game that last year would have been an "honourable" 3-4-goal loss - against the team that finished 5th, who are in very good form & playing well, and who play the hard uncompromising sort of game that we often struggle against. But nobody's saying we're there yet, there's still a long way to go.

Frankly wasn't that impressed with Hawks last night. Thought we handled the pressure far better than they did.