a) recalling how poorly our mids, except for Worpel, performed in the first five rounds last year, it was clear that they came to play. This was best demonstrated in the way they were able to close down the Swans’ mids e.g. knocking down handballs when the Swans looked to distribute on the first possession. No doubt the dominance of Meek in the first half was an important part of being able to exert this pressure.
b) Worpel started the game as he did last year and found a more than willing partner in Day early which gave us forward half dominance. The Swans forays forward early were definitively efficient, but sporadic. When Worpel was hurt, Nash took up his mantle whilst Newcombe made some important contributions along the way.
• The template for Sicily as the ultimate disruptor – A key part of the pre-season musings was what role Sicily would play back or forward? Obviously, he started back and with his ability to intercept the forward entries to the point where the Swans had to put Hayward, who is a more than handy forward, on him in the 3rd quarter which coincided with the impact of Worpel’s injury unsettling the midfield for that period of the game, giving Swans their dominance for this period of the game. Mitchell then looking to win the game threw him forward in the last quarter which created another mismatch for the Swans.
• The recruitment of Amon is now paying its dividends – When Amon was recruited on a five-year contract, many Hawks’ fans were wondering why we’d give such an offer to who was seen to be a handy player rather than an elite one (notwithstanding that in his last year at Port he polled 15 votes in the Brownlow). What is now evident that as the quality of the playing group around him has improved, he has been able to display his elite qualities i.e. decision-making/footy IQ and execution by foot to the best advantage of the team.
• Controlled the tempo of the game – There looked to be a further level of maturity within the team as they were able to control the tempo of the game at a couple of stages in the match where the Swans had (or looked to) created momentum. The first was in the last 5-10 minutes of the 2nd quarter which we had dominated to that point in time – they did kick one goal in red time, which was a scrambled effort from Rowbottom from 40m out. Then again, the last 5 minutes of the 3rd quarter where the Swans had the momentum in the game and on the scoreboard, we were able to ensure that we went into the last quarter with a slim lead and quell the crowd with the ¾ time break.
• Being hurt on turnover is the most obvious defensive weakness – With the Hawk wave in flow, there is a need to ensure that turnovers happen as deep as possible inside F50 otherwise, the backs need to be really on their own game structurally.
Observations:
• Frost as sub was the probably the 4th-5th option before the team was selected, it was a very interesting call because of the limited alternatives he directly offered. This means that other players must make the significant adjustments when he came on. If a midfielder had gone down in the first quarter, there may have been a very different impact on the way the game played out.
• Meek played his best half of football in the brown and gold – it has to be noted that his 2nd half only had 8 of his 30 hit outs. (One of which was against Heeney while Grundy put his boo back on!)
• If Massimo was “Mitch’s Muppet’ in the Full Sweat doco, with his inability to turn on to the right side of his body, Mackenzie (50% KE) may well be the next one his list to address this issue – going left.
• Another pre-season issue was where does Weddle play? As Mitchell noted in his presser, he went forward in the 3rd and whilst Mitch noted has an “unusual” playing style, but still felt he made a positive contribution, however for the moment, he appears to better suited behind the ball. The other aspect to Mitch’s comment is that for those with the ball looking to connect to someone who has an “unusual” style, the level of understanding needs to be strong. We won the inside 50 count 15-10, but the lost the quarter 5.1 to 2.4 – same number of scoring shots??
• When Sicily goes forward, he makes riskier decisions than he does as a defender e.g. the handball to Maginness in the goal square and the attempted entry from the set play kick in where he was the last link in the chain.
• Battle had a couple of moments which were more a matter of developing trust in his new teammates – 2nd quarter the late sling tackle/free kick on Amartey; a couple of minutes later, he gave a 30m handball out to the defensive 50 which the Swans had the wall set; and then late in the game taking a shot from inside the centre square.
• Maginness on a few occasions was part of marking contests when he was required to play as the crumbing forward which he had done well in the pre-season.
• It may not be your day; but it can be your moment – CMac wasn’t able to impose himself across the course of the game but popped up to kick a crucial goal and great chase down.
Starting 4
1st Qrt: Day (16) Newcombe (22) Worpel (13)
2nd Qrt: Nash (22) Day Newcombe
3rd Qrt Day Newcombe Nash
4th Qrt Day Newcombe Nash
(Meek 25; Mackenzie 9; Moore 5; Chol 4)
Issue for the week
The impact of Worpel’s injury – even if the injury is a short-term one (2-3 weeks), how the team balance is maintained will be significant. Leaving aside Day’s absence, this may be the first lengthy absence of another one of the “Big 4”. The issue this year is that the game plan looks to have Day spending time forward, as a pseudo centre half forward, as a key means of addressing Dear’s & Lewis’s absences. This still allows Newcombe, Nash & Worpel to maintain an experienced midfield contribution with two of them working with one of Mackenzie or Moore as part of a rotation, particularly when Nash gives Meek a chop out. With Worpel out and Nash in the ruck, this would have Newcombe with Mackenzie and then say Ward (replacing Worpel) or Moore as the midfield combination. Does this mean that Weddle takes the chop out ruck role*? This would allow Newcombe & Nash to remain as key parts of the midfield rotation with Mackenzie and probably Ward as the supporting acts.
(* in the 3rd quarter, Weddle did take a few ruck contests against McInerney when Nash was off the ground.)
The Finn comment was mine, and I stand by it. I worry about his lack of forward smarts and footy nous, he often chooses the wrong option, and his skills can let him down. I love his endeavour and passion, but if he’s missing tackles, unlike others, I don’t think he brings enough else to compensate.
Hi John, my comments about his game had nothing to do with his missed shots at goal, so I’m not sure it would have changed my perspective all that much.
Obviously if a forward has kicked 3 goals, it can be argued that regardless of what else he has done, he’s done his job. I’m concerned about the things I mentioned previously.
Mick, fantastic to have your weekly reviews once again - and don't hold back, the more the better I reckon. A 20 point win with some very impressive team numbers is a terrific way to start, but a few things to watch:
1. Last season Hardwick had a great second half cameo against Collingwood and a terrific first half against Port, however those two games aside, in general, the Hardwick move forward was not a success. He competed well on Friday but never looked dangerous. Based on what we've seen over the past 12 months, I'm not convinced this will be a long-term success.
2. We kept Sydney to 40 inside 50s, but they were able to score 21 times - it's a smaller ground and their transition is exceptional, but this was a minor negative from the game. On the other hand, we had 58 inside 50s and scored from 26 of those. Reducing the opposition's scoring efficiency and improving our own scoring efficiency is perhaps something to work on.
3. When Worps went down and we had two of our small forwards ineffective, this seemed like a good opportunity to give Connor Mac and Watson a short spell on the ball, just to get them into the game. Nash and Mackenzie really stepped up, which was fantastic, but we need to find a way to get those small forwards into the game in such circumstances where they are totally ineffective. If Worpel is out, this may also be an opportunity to give Connor Mac more opportunity as a pinch hitter in the midfield.
4. As you note, the selection of Frost as sub was odd. There was also a Frostball moment, that could have been a disaster, but fortunately, was not. Frosty showed last season that his role is as a lock down defender, but selecting a lock down defender as sub really limits options.
5. Perhaps the decision to go with one tall forward was based in part on the size of the SCG, where centre half forward is often by-passed, but our best footy last season (and even in 2023), was when we had two tall forward options. On the MCG this week, Gunston (or possible Ramsden) has to play, likely instead of Finn. Meeky was also far less effective in the second half and that may be attributable to minimal rest time due to having only the one tall forward.
I believe that the non-selected players had some sort of match sim on the weekend and wondered if there was any intel from that?
I also wondered why we rarely delivered the ball into the forward line with pinpoint passes like we did last year. The random bombing into a forward line without Lewis or Dear makes it so hard for Chol and the crumbers. When we did pass it in the forward half it was more reminiscent of Hokball 2024 than the skied entries of 2023
I think Wizard or Ginny are more under the pump than Finn. Endeavour is often under rated. I’d rather have Finn’s endeavour than Wizards staging any day.
I think Frosty adds a bit more to the mix than perhaps is realised. He is really quite fast and agile for a big fella, and attacks the ball/player with a great deal of effort. He could be thrown forward as well, so he could play at either end. Our plethora of small forwards can rotate through the midfield, so I didn't mind Frosty as sub.
On Frost as sub. It made no sense to me at all. When you think last year we were undermanned down back but did we ever have a one dimensional big guy as sub? This year with the double B boys a more flexible sub would have been safer……shouldn’t question Sam I guess but it was a real head scratcher
What we know - Rules of Coaching
1. Give your team its best chance to win.
2. Don’t get beaten by what you know.
3. Progression is not linear.
What was learnt.
• The midfield Big 4 came to play –
a) recalling how poorly our mids, except for Worpel, performed in the first five rounds last year, it was clear that they came to play. This was best demonstrated in the way they were able to close down the Swans’ mids e.g. knocking down handballs when the Swans looked to distribute on the first possession. No doubt the dominance of Meek in the first half was an important part of being able to exert this pressure.
b) Worpel started the game as he did last year and found a more than willing partner in Day early which gave us forward half dominance. The Swans forays forward early were definitively efficient, but sporadic. When Worpel was hurt, Nash took up his mantle whilst Newcombe made some important contributions along the way.
• The template for Sicily as the ultimate disruptor – A key part of the pre-season musings was what role Sicily would play back or forward? Obviously, he started back and with his ability to intercept the forward entries to the point where the Swans had to put Hayward, who is a more than handy forward, on him in the 3rd quarter which coincided with the impact of Worpel’s injury unsettling the midfield for that period of the game, giving Swans their dominance for this period of the game. Mitchell then looking to win the game threw him forward in the last quarter which created another mismatch for the Swans.
• The recruitment of Amon is now paying its dividends – When Amon was recruited on a five-year contract, many Hawks’ fans were wondering why we’d give such an offer to who was seen to be a handy player rather than an elite one (notwithstanding that in his last year at Port he polled 15 votes in the Brownlow). What is now evident that as the quality of the playing group around him has improved, he has been able to display his elite qualities i.e. decision-making/footy IQ and execution by foot to the best advantage of the team.
• Controlled the tempo of the game – There looked to be a further level of maturity within the team as they were able to control the tempo of the game at a couple of stages in the match where the Swans had (or looked to) created momentum. The first was in the last 5-10 minutes of the 2nd quarter which we had dominated to that point in time – they did kick one goal in red time, which was a scrambled effort from Rowbottom from 40m out. Then again, the last 5 minutes of the 3rd quarter where the Swans had the momentum in the game and on the scoreboard, we were able to ensure that we went into the last quarter with a slim lead and quell the crowd with the ¾ time break.
• Being hurt on turnover is the most obvious defensive weakness – With the Hawk wave in flow, there is a need to ensure that turnovers happen as deep as possible inside F50 otherwise, the backs need to be really on their own game structurally.
Observations:
• Frost as sub was the probably the 4th-5th option before the team was selected, it was a very interesting call because of the limited alternatives he directly offered. This means that other players must make the significant adjustments when he came on. If a midfielder had gone down in the first quarter, there may have been a very different impact on the way the game played out.
• Meek played his best half of football in the brown and gold – it has to be noted that his 2nd half only had 8 of his 30 hit outs. (One of which was against Heeney while Grundy put his boo back on!)
• If Massimo was “Mitch’s Muppet’ in the Full Sweat doco, with his inability to turn on to the right side of his body, Mackenzie (50% KE) may well be the next one his list to address this issue – going left.
• Another pre-season issue was where does Weddle play? As Mitchell noted in his presser, he went forward in the 3rd and whilst Mitch noted has an “unusual” playing style, but still felt he made a positive contribution, however for the moment, he appears to better suited behind the ball. The other aspect to Mitch’s comment is that for those with the ball looking to connect to someone who has an “unusual” style, the level of understanding needs to be strong. We won the inside 50 count 15-10, but the lost the quarter 5.1 to 2.4 – same number of scoring shots??
• When Sicily goes forward, he makes riskier decisions than he does as a defender e.g. the handball to Maginness in the goal square and the attempted entry from the set play kick in where he was the last link in the chain.
• Battle had a couple of moments which were more a matter of developing trust in his new teammates – 2nd quarter the late sling tackle/free kick on Amartey; a couple of minutes later, he gave a 30m handball out to the defensive 50 which the Swans had the wall set; and then late in the game taking a shot from inside the centre square.
• Maginness on a few occasions was part of marking contests when he was required to play as the crumbing forward which he had done well in the pre-season.
• It may not be your day; but it can be your moment – CMac wasn’t able to impose himself across the course of the game but popped up to kick a crucial goal and great chase down.
Starting 4
1st Qrt: Day (16) Newcombe (22) Worpel (13)
2nd Qrt: Nash (22) Day Newcombe
3rd Qrt Day Newcombe Nash
4th Qrt Day Newcombe Nash
(Meek 25; Mackenzie 9; Moore 5; Chol 4)
Issue for the week
The impact of Worpel’s injury – even if the injury is a short-term one (2-3 weeks), how the team balance is maintained will be significant. Leaving aside Day’s absence, this may be the first lengthy absence of another one of the “Big 4”. The issue this year is that the game plan looks to have Day spending time forward, as a pseudo centre half forward, as a key means of addressing Dear’s & Lewis’s absences. This still allows Newcombe, Nash & Worpel to maintain an experienced midfield contribution with two of them working with one of Mackenzie or Moore as part of a rotation, particularly when Nash gives Meek a chop out. With Worpel out and Nash in the ruck, this would have Newcombe with Mackenzie and then say Ward (replacing Worpel) or Moore as the midfield combination. Does this mean that Weddle takes the chop out ruck role*? This would allow Newcombe & Nash to remain as key parts of the midfield rotation with Mackenzie and probably Ward as the supporting acts.
(* in the 3rd quarter, Weddle did take a few ruck contests against McInerney when Nash was off the ground.)
Mick if your comments could be shorter than the recap, that would be appreciated 😂
Mick wants his own column !
Thanks Mick. Your feedback compliments the review article, and we HIs get a double-dip summation of the game. Love it!!
I think the Finn criticism is harsh. 3 scoring shots. Wasn't alone in missed tackles. Allows flexibility in that he can play in all thirds.
The Finn comment was mine, and I stand by it. I worry about his lack of forward smarts and footy nous, he often chooses the wrong option, and his skills can let him down. I love his endeavour and passion, but if he’s missing tackles, unlike others, I don’t think he brings enough else to compensate.
McGuiness played a good game. He missed 2 snaps at goal that would have changed your perception of his role.
He stays this week and marks Ridley out of the game.
Hi John, my comments about his game had nothing to do with his missed shots at goal, so I’m not sure it would have changed my perspective all that much.
Obviously if a forward has kicked 3 goals, it can be argued that regardless of what else he has done, he’s done his job. I’m concerned about the things I mentioned previously.
Mick, fantastic to have your weekly reviews once again - and don't hold back, the more the better I reckon. A 20 point win with some very impressive team numbers is a terrific way to start, but a few things to watch:
1. Last season Hardwick had a great second half cameo against Collingwood and a terrific first half against Port, however those two games aside, in general, the Hardwick move forward was not a success. He competed well on Friday but never looked dangerous. Based on what we've seen over the past 12 months, I'm not convinced this will be a long-term success.
2. We kept Sydney to 40 inside 50s, but they were able to score 21 times - it's a smaller ground and their transition is exceptional, but this was a minor negative from the game. On the other hand, we had 58 inside 50s and scored from 26 of those. Reducing the opposition's scoring efficiency and improving our own scoring efficiency is perhaps something to work on.
3. When Worps went down and we had two of our small forwards ineffective, this seemed like a good opportunity to give Connor Mac and Watson a short spell on the ball, just to get them into the game. Nash and Mackenzie really stepped up, which was fantastic, but we need to find a way to get those small forwards into the game in such circumstances where they are totally ineffective. If Worpel is out, this may also be an opportunity to give Connor Mac more opportunity as a pinch hitter in the midfield.
4. As you note, the selection of Frost as sub was odd. There was also a Frostball moment, that could have been a disaster, but fortunately, was not. Frosty showed last season that his role is as a lock down defender, but selecting a lock down defender as sub really limits options.
5. Perhaps the decision to go with one tall forward was based in part on the size of the SCG, where centre half forward is often by-passed, but our best footy last season (and even in 2023), was when we had two tall forward options. On the MCG this week, Gunston (or possible Ramsden) has to play, likely instead of Finn. Meeky was also far less effective in the second half and that may be attributable to minimal rest time due to having only the one tall forward.
I believe that the non-selected players had some sort of match sim on the weekend and wondered if there was any intel from that?
Thanks again for the great contribution Mick.
I also wondered why we rarely delivered the ball into the forward line with pinpoint passes like we did last year. The random bombing into a forward line without Lewis or Dear makes it so hard for Chol and the crumbers. When we did pass it in the forward half it was more reminiscent of Hokball 2024 than the skied entries of 2023
Coaches’ votes
5. Day Day
4. Sicily Amon
3. Amon Wicks
2. Wicks Sicily
1. Warner Blakey
I think Wizard or Ginny are more under the pump than Finn. Endeavour is often under rated. I’d rather have Finn’s endeavour than Wizards staging any day.
I think Frosty adds a bit more to the mix than perhaps is realised. He is really quite fast and agile for a big fella, and attacks the ball/player with a great deal of effort. He could be thrown forward as well, so he could play at either end. Our plethora of small forwards can rotate through the midfield, so I didn't mind Frosty as sub.
Is that really a picture of Brad in the bath? 🤢
You guys really should have placed a warning label on this one 😂
Just adding some mayo to the main meal, Prinsy.
Agree give Mick his own column!
On Frost as sub. It made no sense to me at all. When you think last year we were undermanned down back but did we ever have a one dimensional big guy as sub? This year with the double B boys a more flexible sub would have been safer……shouldn’t question Sam I guess but it was a real head scratcher
Spot on - thank you 💛🤎