What Hawthorn does different to us. | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

What Hawthorn does different to us.

Brodders17

Tiger Legend
Mar 21, 2008
17,820
12,021
Bill James said:
Ultimately the main reaons is Hawthorn kick more goals than their direct opponents more often. However there are a couple of stats that are symptomatic of why.

CONTESTED POSESSIONS
Hawthorn ranks 18th for CP differential vs their direct opponent. On average they have 15 less CP's than their opponents.
On our side Hardwick is obsessed with winning the CP count.

ONE PERCENTERS (spoils, smothers, shepherds and knock-ons)
Hawthorn ranks 1st for 1%er differential vs their direct opponent. They average 11 more 1%ers than their opponent.
Richmond ranks 18th for 1%er differential vs direct opponents. We average 7 fewer 1%ers than our opponent.

Personally I think these stats are related. You can choose to take a contested ball which might work but probably results in a stoppage or worse a free against, or you can choose to knock on and keep the team moving. Clearly Hawthorn is more willing to knock the ball onto advantage than take a dodgy contested possession.

There is a difference between winning a contest (good) and creating contests (bad). Surely it is obvious that hitting someone on his own inside 50 is a better avenue to goal than kicking to a contest.

i think the top 9 on the contested ball ladder fill the top 10 spots on the ladder. the hawks are an outlier.

there is merit is the 2nd stat though. the hawks dont put as much emphasis on winning the ball as winning the ball back.

i do reckon though come the GF the hawks will be going all out to win the ball when it is in dispute, and from memory the stats show the hawks have won CB in the last 3 GF's. when the ball needs to be won they win it.
 

Harry

Tiger Legend
Mar 2, 2003
24,586
12,177
Tigers of Old said:
To think that around 2004 both clubs were fairly similarly placed.. :-[

Yep they've won 4 flags while we haven't won 1 final in 12 years since. Embarrassing. And to think some of our board members have been around most of this time. Soft club run by mice.
 

houdini

Tiger Superstar
Aug 26, 2009
1,670
4
boring dullsville perth
Nico said:
Hawks have max. 4 year terms for board members, whereas RFC board members can stay as long as apathetic RFC members keep them in. We have a number of board members who have been there for 10+ years. Hawthorn continuously refresh, bring in fresh ideas, skills. There's no coups (bloodless or otherwise) as you have 4 years to have a crack and make a difference, and then you're given a bottle of red and thanked for your contribution.

Fixed terms were recently voted against by the RFC board. Fancy that! This has to be voted for by the MEMBERS!

If the RFC had fixed terms, there would not be one board member still around who ratified the appointments of DH, BG, and FJ. No allies, no mates, just board members making decisions as how the RFC is going to win their next premiership.

Mark my words, fixed terms for board members will radically change the culture at the RFC as the goal of board members will be to make a positive difference, rather than be re-elected.

Apologies for discussing non-football issues on this thread, but I am passionate about this issue.
you are 100% correct , until the board changes nothing else will
 

seven

Super Tiger
Apr 20, 2004
26,483
12,481
What Hawthorn does different to us?

Recruit decent young players
 

jb03

Tiger Legend
Jan 28, 2004
33,856
12,108
Melbourne
Nico said:
Hawks have max. 4 year terms for board members, whereas RFC board members can stay as long as apathetic RFC members keep them in. We have a number of board members who have been there for 10+ years. Hawthorn continuously refresh, bring in fresh ideas, skills. There's no coups (bloodless or otherwise) as you have 4 years to have a crack and make a difference, and then you're given a bottle of red and thanked for your contribution.

Fixed terms were recently voted against by the RFC board. Fancy that! This has to be voted for by the MEMBERS!

If the RFC had fixed terms, there would not be one board member still around who ratified the appointments of DH, BG, and FJ. No allies, no mates, just board members making decisions as how the RFC is going to win their next premiership.

Mark my words, fixed terms for board members will radically change the culture at the RFC as the goal of board members will be to make a positive difference, rather than be re-elected.

Apologies for discussing non-football issues on this thread, but I am passionate about this issue.

Great post Nico.
 

jb03

Tiger Legend
Jan 28, 2004
33,856
12,108
Melbourne
Brodders17 said:
i think the top 9 on the contested ball ladder fill the top 10 spots on the ladder. the hawks are an outlier.
I thought outliers were banned on PRE?
 

1eyedtiger

Tiger Superstar
Jun 2, 2007
1,132
1
Hawthorn sent Hardwick out of the coaches box for a 10 minute break whenever plan A failed and they had to go to plan B.
 

dcstar

Once sane, always Richmond......
Nov 5, 2003
4,214
0
Melbourne
Bill James said:
Ultimately the main reasons is Hawthorn kick more goals than their direct opponents more often.
.......
Hawthorn have far better skilled players coming into their senior side, they don't seem to allow totally one-sided players into their seniors until they have addressed that deficiency at VFL level. We have constantly introduced players into our senior side that have massive deficiencies that we seem to allow to be worked on while they rack up 50+ AFL matches.

Hawthorn's game plan is dependant on superior decision and disposal skills while under pressure, we have tried to copy that game plan with a squad totally inadequate in these areas but we pretend that we will miraculously one day reach their level despite our poor recruiting and player development.

Hawthorn are innovative and proactive, they do now what we will do in 2 years time when we finally figure out what it is and follow the rest of the AFL sheep in trying to play the game style to win a Grand Final played 4 years ago while Hawthorn are planning how to win the Grand Final played in two years time.
 

tigertime2

Our cup runneth over!
Mar 22, 2008
4,574
1,763
Absolute disgrace to even mention Hawthorn and Richmond in the same sentence. We have been a disgrace for 36 years and it ain't getting any better in the next 10.
 

LeeToRainesToRoach

Tiger Legend
Jun 4, 2006
33,186
11,546
Melbourne
Tigers of Old said:
To think that around 2004 both clubs were fairly similarly placed.. :-[

One of the more damning things is the Bulldogs citing us as an example of how they wanted to go forwards, just three or four years ago. They're years ahead of us now - after losing their skipper, sacking the coach and blowing $$ on Boyd for not much return.
 

TOT70

I'm just a suburban boy
Jul 27, 2004
9,734
3,802
Melbourne
Hawthorn has incredible buy in from its leadership group. When you hear Lewis, Roughead, Mitchell, Hodge, Smith and Mitchell speak, they even sound like Clarkson. They set the tone early in every game. Everybody follows.

We have some buy in but it is nowhere near enough. Rance sets the tone, Cotchin does too, providing he is not frustrated by close attention, Jack generally leads the forward line well but he is prone to looking for frees and back chatting the umpires. Nonetheless, they are all whole-hearted leaders. Of the rest, Grimes and Astbury try to emulate Rance and a couple of the young kids have added enthusiasm. That is about it.

We have way too many who play for themselves. Instead of shepherding, they peel off for the hand ball. Instead of running to present another option, they hang back. They don't waste their energy on runs that are likely to go unrewarded. Under pressure, they look for safe options, not the high risk options that might slice up the defence or lead to an embarrassing mistake.

Mind you, It is not a good idea to make an embarrassing mistake when you play for Richmond, as Houli found out with his ill-advised last kick in against Freo last year. We tend to be an unforgiving lot.


Do players from other clubs get as much media and fan attention as Richmond and Collingwood players do? It is an extra barrier for them to overcome.

On field leadership is still our Achilles heel.
 

Leysy Days

Tiger Legend
Feb 26, 2004
21,441
8,330
TOT70 said:
Hawthorn has incredible buy in from its leadership group. When you hear Lewis, Roughead, Mitchell, Hodge, Smith and Mitchell speak, they even sound like Clarkson. They set the tone early in every game. Everybody follows.

We have some buy in but it is nowhere near enough. Rance sets the tone, Cotchin does too, providing he is not frustrated by close attention, Jack generally leads the forward line well but he is prone to looking for frees and back chatting the umpires. Nonetheless, they are all whole-hearted leaders. Of the rest, Grimes and Astbury try to emulate Rance and a couple of the young kids have added enthusiasm. That is about it.

We have way too many who play for themselves. Instead of shepherding, they peel off for the hand ball. Instead of running to present another option, they hang back. They don't waste their energy on runs that are likely to go unrewarded. Under pressure, they look for safe options, not the high risk options that might slice up the defence or lead to an embarrassing mistake.

Mind you, It is not a good idea to make an embarrassing mistake when you play for Richmond, as Houli found out with his ill-advised last kick in against Freo last year. We tend to be an unforgiving lot.


Do players from other clubs get as much media and fan attention as Richmond and Collingwood players do? It is an extra barrier for them to overcome.

On field leadership is still our Achilles heel.

Or is it because the players (now) don't have complete faith in the plan the coach is selling them.

When that happens the system breaks down like it is this year.
 

TOT70

I'm just a suburban boy
Jul 27, 2004
9,734
3,802
Melbourne
Leysy Days said:
Or is it because the players (now) don't have complete faith in the plan the coach is selling them.

When that happens the system breaks down like it is this year.

Chicken or the egg? It is the same thing. The coach’s job is to get the buy-in from the players. He won’t get it if he can’t sell the benefits to them.

To be honest, I think the system has broken down because it is too well-understood by other coaches. Just a simple example, Hardwick almost always uses a medium sized defender like Batchelor, Vlastuin and now Markov on the third tall forward. He then builds the back line around good spoiling players like Grimes, Morris, Houli and even Hunt but they are all pretty useless under the high ball. You can take this to the bank.

The smarter coaches know how our back line will look, so they will load their forward line up with ruck-forwards and instruct their players to kick the ball high so that they can outmark their smaller opponents. As Geelong started to fall off the pace they moved Taylor and Henderson forward on the weekend. Why? North always isolate Ben Brown this way, usually with devastating effects. We did Ok against the Bulldogs because they don’t have three genuine talls. GWS had Patton, Lobb and Cameron up forward all game. The Hawks always had either McEvoy or Ceglar as their third tall. Even Gold Coast went with Lynch, Day and Wright.

It is just too easy. Imagine if we had a genuine contested marking defender or even a dominant marking ruckman spending time across half back? Our defenders rely on closing speed and spoiling low trajectory kicks. So opposition midfields kick it up high.

Given that Hardwick is going to be around next year, the only hope is that we end up with at least one of the new assistants being more strategic on match day. Otherwise, we will spend another year watching Houli, Morris, Batchelor and Hunt panicking under high bombs.

Why does Hunt even play in defence? Surely, with his skill set and traits he is a tagger or he doesn’t play. Why do we never tag anyone? Boomer Harvey loves playing against us because we never play a hard tag on him. His opponent has to take his position in the zone first and watch Harvey second. He just runs away. Why wouldn’t he? Who else gives him this luxury?