So, people who actually understand football - question about our year

Like, people who really understand the game at this level, which I confess for all my enjoyment watching it I don't really understand what really affects team performance ...

 

What does it say that we came within two goals of the reigning premiers this year?

 

From recollection we faced a somewhat understaffed Hawthorn didn't we - I think Hodge was out?

 

Do you take any serious positives away from having been "in touch" with that side and very nearly having beaten them?

 

But then how do you square that with some of the utterly turgid performances - I am not just talking about the loss to St Kilda, and hell, the one to Richmond for that matter, but some of those grinding games like GWS.

 

Honestly, I just don't understand how to square all these things together.

 

TLDR: Are we "in touch" just needing some 'mental' work, or ... are there bigger issues?

We don't have the depth Hawthorn does. No one does. That's why they've gone back-to-back.

 

They've built their player list from the bottom up. If you want to keep your spot in the 22 (even the Box Hill 22), you need to absolutely bust a nut at every chance you get, because there's 20 blokes nipping at your heels, aching to have your spot. For some reason we persist with the same selection policy as the Australian test cricket team (ie: only way to be dropped is to be hurt/retired/dead) and rely on developing experience.

 

By being ruthless at the selection table, you create hunger. Blokes will put in at training/VFL if there is clear evidence that there's regular chances for a call up. Anyone who is complacent in the AFL side will find out very quickly that it's not acceptable to have that attitude.

 

I'd also like to point out that just about every response in here will fail the criteria you have set out in your thread title.

It might have meant a lot if we'd won - momentum, confidence, etc. - but it meant nothing that we got within two goals. 

It was round 2, so it's a long bow to draw going back that far. I take very little from it. Early on is the best time to play them like we did, they are not near top gear.

 

The game summed up the two sides, they knew how to win it and we knew how to lose it.

 

They are classes better than us. For us it's consistency, losses to St.Kilda, Melb and even that draw against Carlton just don't happen at Hawthorn.

 

I look at contested ball animals like Hodge, Lewis and even Mitchell and I don't think bar Watson we have enough who consistently win their own ball. Heppell is on his way.

Like, people who really understand the game at this level, which I confess for all my enjoyment watching it I don't really understand what really affects team performance ...

 

What does it say that we came within two goals of the reigning premiers this year?

 

From recollection we faced a somewhat understaffed Hawthorn didn't we - I think Hodge was out?

 

Do you take any serious positives away from having been "in touch" with that side and very nearly having beaten them?

 

But then how do you square that with some of the utterly turgid performances - I am not just talking about the loss to St Kilda, and hell, the one to Richmond for that matter, but some of those grinding games like GWS.

 

Honestly, I just don't understand how to square all these things together.

 

TLDR: Are we "in touch" just needing some 'mental' work, or ... are there bigger issues?

 

Getting yourself up for one match is not what winning flags is about.

 

North pumped Sydney by 6 or 7 goals during the season.

 

Then were pumped by 12 goals in the Prelim whilst in red hot form with basically a fully list up and running.

 

I was pleased that for once we didn't get completely dismantled like we had the 3 years before.

We don't have the depth Hawthorn does. No one does. That's why they've gone back-to-back.

 

They've built their player list from the bottom up. If you want to keep your spot in the 22 (even the Box Hill 22), you need to absolutely bust a nut at every chance you get, because there's 20 blokes nipping at your heels, aching to have your spot. For some reason we persist with the same selection policy as the Australian test cricket team (ie: only way to be dropped is to be hurt/retired/dead) and rely on developing experience.

 

By being ruthless at the selection table, you create hunger. Blokes will put in at training/VFL if there is clear evidence that there's regular chances for a call up. Anyone who is complacent in the AFL side will find out very quickly that it's not acceptable to have that attitude.

 

I'd also like to point out that just about every response in here will fail the criteria you have set out in your thread title.

 

 

 

Every club should target Hawthorns list then.

 

Must be a lot of blokes in the 2's champing at the bit for game time.

Free agency will unfortunately allow them to stay at the top for a little whilst longer. In the end guys like Frawley who want success are probably going to lob at Hawthorn, and will replace Lake over the coming years.

They had the luxury of trading last years first round pick for McEvoy, got rid of a fringe player like Savage and still brought in a quality kid in Hartung.

 

They trade better than anyone else.

 

They'll get Frawley, probably someone else. Rinse and repeat.

Slow steps.

 

The fact remains we got belted by the team that finished 2nd twice.

 

Work on the depth and get the forward line firing.

Even though we have benefited from Free Agency, I am really not a fan of it.

As top sides, will continue to keep topping up and stay at the top.

 

Our year was frustrating in my eyes.   You could see the games we were going to drop before we got on the ground. 

Mentally, we are stuffed, and it shows.   We can't click for a full game, and we drift in and out constantly during games.

 

If other sides are on, we can only seem to match them for short periods, which explains the closeness of lots of games.

We rarely flogged sides, and we were rarely flogged ourselves.  We just seemed to be doing enough.

 

I think the disaster in Fremantle with the heat and sickness sweeping our club at the early part of the year, really affected us for a considerable time.   We just never seemed to recover fitness wise after that, until much later in the year when it was too late.  

IIRC Hodge played (and broke), but Mitchell, Lake & Gibson didn't. They were at an OK strength, maybe 80-85%. Ryder broke down for us, Winderlich didn't play, Bell didn't play, Dempsey didn't play so I'd say we were at about 85-90%.

 

 

It means something - only a little bit of something - but something nonetheless. We've won a lot of games pre-June in the last 4 years which haven't meant much after the end of the year fadeout. On that front I disagree it would've been a real boon for us confidence wise.

 

 

I think we gained a LOT more confidence being 'in' 18 or 19 games and having no real fade-out than we would've gained if we'd won say 3-4 more games and been beaten heavily in the others.

 

Flakiness is our real enemy. Not what happens in round 2 with a couple out, but what happens in round 15 with 7 out. That's the hallmark of 2011-2013. Competitiveness is what we need to breed, we showed a lot more of that in 2014.

On that front the final, the Port win, the Weagles win, the GC win etc meant a lot more than us than any game pre-June. Even the 2nd Sydney game where we went down by 20 points, because it was a hell of a lot better effort than the first game.

 

I think there's cause for optimism on that front. For the first time in a decade we have the option to blood the Zerrett/Gleeson/JD/Ashby group with the very real opportunity to play in, and compete in, finals. I don't know if I buy into all of the 'culture' stuff but I certainly think being able to see the first step makes it a lot easier for guys to visualise & work towards going the next step. Helps attract players too.

The only reason that we are a top 6 team atm is because the other 12 clubs are bigger basket cases than us. We have so much room for improvement. It starts with a unified recruiting, high performance and board. Atm we have very little idea about who we should be recruiting, how we should develop them and recruiting the right people for these positions.

Interesting we were mentally stuffed according to a lot of people yet had our best year in 9 years or so. I suggest the opposite. Lots of little things went wrong but the guts of it is OK.

Hawthorn is a unified club, untroubled by external distractions.

 

It has a core group of A grade players that have, like Geelong, been playing together for years.

 

These players have had a massive influence on the fast tracking of 1-3 year players Hill/Langford etc....

 

Everyone has 'bought in' to a  specific culture/mindset/gameplan.

 

Their coach is a brilliant tactician and has the respect of the playing group.

 

They have attracted/recruited very well from other clubs.

 

 

Are we close? Fairly rhetorical question.......

Our biggest problem is sustaining our best football for four quarters.

 

We have shown our best football is good enough to match it with the best teams, our problem is with consistently being able to produce our best football.

 

That game against the Hawks is prefect example, we were nowhere near them in the first half, looked like it was going to be a significant 10+ goal defeat.

 

However, we then came out in the 3rd quarter and I believe it was a 6 goal to 0 term in our favour and we were right back in the match.

 

So what causes our inability to perform for a full 4 quarters. I don't think it is a lack of fitness because there were a number of games where we got blown away in the first quarter, which cannot be put down to substandard fitness levels.

It seems to me that our issue are three fold. One we can struggle with mental application, you cannot go into games assuming that you simply have to turn up to win games, hence our losses against Melbourne and St Kilda and very close wins against teams we should have beaten far more easily Bulldogs x 2, GWS and the draw against Carlton.

 

Another issue we have is that we do not know how to get consistently and effectively get the game back on our terms when they other team gets a surge on. We tend to panic which just causes more issues, we are not effective at reverting to tempo football to kill the other teams momentum and get things going in our favour.

 

The third issue we have is that as a playing group we are selective in our intensity. We got back into that game against the Hawks because we lifted our intensity and attack the man and the ball. Everytime the Hawks got the ball they were crunched, it put them under incredible pressure and forced them into making mistakes which we were able to capitalise on. Our issue is our intensity levels not only changed from week to week, but from half to half and quarter to quarter.

 

Our best football is good enough to challenge any team in the competition, but this season we were only able to produce for a quarter, or maybe a half of a game, the closest we got to a full game performance was against ■■■■ Carlton in round 3, and even then we let them kick a number of cheap goals in the last quarter, which robbed us of burying those ■■■■■ by over a 100 points.

 

What to we do to ensure they playing group can produce their best football and play at the right intensity level for 4 quarters every single ■■■■■■■ week? Don't know. Are they capable of it? Don't know, but if they aren't, the club might as well start rebuilding because we won't challenge with this group if they aren't able to achieve it.

 

This is where Hird, the assistant coaches, list management and recruiting staff need to be brutal in the assessment of our list. For too long has mediocrity either not been identified by the club, or tolerated by the club. They either need to be clear on knowing what they need to do to get the current group to play at their best consistently or they need to rebuild the playing group and they need to do it quickly or we are going to waste the likes of Watson and Goddard and another 2006 will be on the cards.  

The only reason that we are a top 6 team atm is because the other 12 clubs are bigger basket cases than us. We have so much room for improvement. It starts with a unified recruiting, high performance and board. Atm we have very little idea about who we should be recruiting, how we should develop them and recruiting the right people for these positions.

This is going to sound really harsh, but that's basically just saying "everything is ■■■■ and we should sack everyone and start again", with a padded out wordcount. Surely you can see "we're not united so we should sack people" is incoherent. A club with no idea is a basketcase - yet we're not a basketcase. With no detail other than that it's a bit hard to take seriously.

Hawthorn is a unified club, untroubled by external distractions.

 

It has a core group of A grade players that have, like Geelong, been playing together for years.

 

These players have had a massive influence on the fast tracking of 1-3 year players Hill/Langford etc....

 

Everyone has 'bought in' to a  specific culture/mindset/gameplan.

 

Their coach is a brilliant tactician and has the respect of the playing group.

 

They have attracted/recruited very well from other clubs.

 

 

Are we close? Fairly rhetorical question.......

I think the 'are we close' is (as you say) a moot point, the question is a) are we getting closer and b ) how we get from where we are to where they are.

I don't think 'sack everyone and go again' is a really good answer.

 

We don't have the depth Hawthorn does. No one does. That's why they've gone back-to-back.

 

They've built their player list from the bottom up. If you want to keep your spot in the 22 (even the Box Hill 22), you need to absolutely bust a nut at every chance you get, because there's 20 blokes nipping at your heels, aching to have your spot. For some reason we persist with the same selection policy as the Australian test cricket team (ie: only way to be dropped is to be hurt/retired/dead) and rely on developing experience.

 

By being ruthless at the selection table, you create hunger. Blokes will put in at training/VFL if there is clear evidence that there's regular chances for a call up. Anyone who is complacent in the AFL side will find out very quickly that it's not acceptable to have that attitude.

 

I'd also like to point out that just about every response in here will fail the criteria you have set out in your thread title.

 

Every club should target Hawthorns list then.

 

Must be a lot of blokes in the 2's champing at the bit for game time.

 

I would say that an AFL-listed player running around for Box Hill is far closer to playing in an AFL premiership than someone on the list of a club outside this year's top four.

Football is like Women, no-one truly understands either !!

We have matched it with the better sides bar Fremantle.& Sydney this year.

Yes Hawks were undermanned when we played them.

 

The Key is we matched the better sides by playing 1 quarter of awesome footy where we piled on 5-6 goals and stopped them from scoring.

If we can expand this play to a half or 3 quarters we will be putting sides away.

other benefit is forwardline was a work in progress. will be better placed in 2015 with Carlisle Daniher.

Backline is a Rock.

Midfield is good when we win the ball if we lose it lack speed and chasing ability and lack a bit of run and spread with plodders in there.

 

2015 we should aim for top 4.

- may lose Ryder

- core of our group is still there

- J merrett, Gleeson, fantasia, Ashby will all play more games

- Daniher & Zerrett will have benefited from another preseason

- Bellchambers fully fit will improve his output, and he would love being sole ruck

- we will be in a hole if Bell goes down. Need to draft a mature ruck or ruck/forward

- I have low expectations for Kavanagh, Edwards, steak knives,  O'Brien, Gregory, Browne (coming off knee) so if any of these guys comes in and improves then that is something unexpected.

- Hoping Melksham, rediscovers his 2013 form.

- Hams, Dalgleish and kommer are like 3 new players on the list as missed large amounts of 2014

- Expect improvement from Heppell/zaharakis again

- wont miss hardy/Jetta.

- Hoping a few of our draft picks come in and play a role in best 22, or we trade a player in that fills a list need for us.

- Need some excitement machines - Tippa/Long

 

 

We don't have the depth Hawthorn does. No one does. That's why they've gone back-to-back.

 

They've built their player list from the bottom up. If you want to keep your spot in the 22 (even the Box Hill 22), you need to absolutely bust a nut at every chance you get, because there's 20 blokes nipping at your heels, aching to have your spot. For some reason we persist with the same selection policy as the Australian test cricket team (ie: only way to be dropped is to be hurt/retired/dead) and rely on developing experience.

 

By being ruthless at the selection table, you create hunger. Blokes will put in at training/VFL if there is clear evidence that there's regular chances for a call up. Anyone who is complacent in the AFL side will find out very quickly that it's not acceptable to have that attitude.

 

I'd also like to point out that just about every response in here will fail the criteria you have set out in your thread title.

 

Every club should target Hawthorns list then.

 

Must be a lot of blokes in the 2's champing at the bit for game time.

 

I would say that an AFL-listed player running around for Box Hill is far closer to playing in an AFL premiership than someone on the list of a club outside this year's top four.

 

 

I saw an article in the paper last week comparing Luke Parker and Mitch Hallhan who played in Box Hill's Grand Final team.

 

They were taken at pick 38 and 40 respectively in the same draft. Parker has played 80 odd games for Sydney, Mitch Hallahan has managed 6 for the Hawks, is that because Mitch is ■■■■, or because he's behind a midfield rotation that features Mitchell, Lewis, Burgoyne, Rioli, Hill, Shiel, Smith, Sewell, Langford, Hodge etc etc.

 

Not sure, haven't really seen any of Mitch Hallahan's work at Box Hill to say. But the fact the Hawks have kept him on their list for 4 years now, would suggest they see some talent there. If I remember correctly as well their were a couple of posters on here who suggested last year that he was the sort of bloke we should be targetting during trade week.