Notes from the game: 2015 Round 14 Hawthorn

Against the reigning premiers, the Pies kick themselves out of a game they should have won in a canter.

Team            Q1      Q2      Q3      Q4      Final
Collingwood     3.5     7.7     9.16    12.19   91
Hawthorn        4.2     8.5     12.7    15.11   101

If bad kicking is bad footy, this was one of the worst games of the year. I could argue that against Adelaide in round 2 and against Freo last year in round 1, we played such shite we deserved to lose. But this game was something else. We kept pace with the Hawks until we started missing regulation shots. Had we converted just 2 of about 8 we would have won.

And still we managed to keep up with the Hawks.

We never looked as slick as the Hawks with their rapid ball movement, their control of tempo, their constant ability to have not one but two players without opponents, one to run and draw an opponent while the other ran ahead to receive when the opponent closed. Repeatedly, the Hawks kicked into a sparse F50; ours was usually crowded. When it wasn't, we scored easily.

And still we managed to keep up with the Hawks.

Given what I've said about Hawthorn, I have no idea how we were in the game deep into the last quarter. Hell, we got two kicks in front! At some time in the third quarter, after yet another regulation miss, I looked at the scoreboard and was astonished to see that we were only three points down. It had seemed to me that we were kicking point for goal.

What went wrong?

At selection

I have a theory. I reckon the selection panel got it completely wrong. It's unusual to bring in a player for his first game. It's less common than a blue moon to bring in two. (A blue moon is the second full moon in a calendar month. It comes around about once a year.)

I reckon the brains trust sat down at the selection table, looked at the bookie odds and decided that the Hawks game was a loss. Well, if you're going to lose anyway, what better opportunity to blood two new players? If they had given themselves any chance at all of winning this match, they would not have made those selections.

They wouldn't have dropped Seedsman for starters. Their hand was forced a bit by Goldsack's knee (knees?). Once again, I return to The Footy Bogan's Variation:

Those who cannot learn from their historical successes will fail to reproduce them.

(Except this time, I've decided to elevate it to the status of universal truth by capitalising "Variation".)

Why has our threadbare, cobbled-together defence stood up? Because it has been coordinated and cohesive. I attribute that in no small part to Goldsack. Look at yesterday's backline:

   B: Tom Langdon, Nathan Brown, Marley Williams
   HB: Alan Toovey, Jack Frost, Brayden Maynard

There are two experienced players (Brown and Toovey). As well as he has played for the last season-and-a-half, Frost is a rookie. Williams is amazingly good, but still young. Langdon is in his second season; he has failed to impress the Bogan. He has his moments, but he also has some disasters. Yesterday provided another example. He should never be allowed to take the kick-in; he's a repeat offender.

Goldsack provides the backline with major extras: he is an experienced head; I believe he helps to marshal the defence; and he is a reliable kick-in (not quite Leon territory, but getting there with the X factor that he sometimes goes the torp).

Given that, how could you possibly bring in a defender for his first game? Sure, if Reid was there as well. But against Hawthorn? In the event, Maynard had a dirty night. Since Seedsman was named as an emergency, I think he should have been preferred to Maynard. If not Seedsman, then Ben Kennedy.

The very fact that the third emergency was Jonathon Marsh (another untried payer) confirms that the selection panel did not consider Maynard and Moore particularly special. There were two potential scenarios: Marsh would replace another experienced player (totally unthinkable! to have 3 untried players at once!); or Marsh would replace one of the newbies - in which case, how special could those debutants be?! And the fact that Seedsman was named as an emergency speaks to the idea that whatever he may have done wong last week can't have been too heinous.

This next bit might fall under either or both of two headings: selection failure or coaching failure. In the absence of Goldsack, was any thought given to his replacement for kick-in duties? Clearly not, or we would have avoided the horror of watching Langdon with the ball in hand in the defensive goal square.

Williams could probably have handled the role. He seems to be able to handle almost any challenge. Had Seedsman played, he might have been all right. He does kick the ball a long way.

Bad kicking

I'd like to argue that the selection of two debutants was responsible for our loss, but, as far as I can tell, that's not the major cause. And that fact speaks to how well we might have done had the selectors not chosen to experiment; to how far we've come. We could have brushed aside the reigning premiers and instilled fear into the competition.

2.9 in the third quarter!

Here's a selection of misses.

Third quarter:

14 minute : Behind Alex Fasolo
24 minute : Behind Jack Crisp
25 minute : Behind Alex Fasolo
27 minute : Behind Alex Fasolo

Fourth quarter:

21 minute : Behind Jesse White

And still we managed to keep up with the Hawks.

The above were all pretty much regulation shots at goal. Three were set shots. Together they would have produced at least a 15-point victory (because scoreboard pressure might have made the Hawks final score lower).

I'm sure there were a few more examples from the first half of the game. I'm writing this before I watch the replay because I want to capture how strongly I feel that we let slip a golden opportunity (not just to win, but to exact a measure of revenge and that holiest of all virtues, schadenfreude.

Post match

On the drive home, listening to SEN, I heard that Buckley was very quick to console his troops. Far from giving them a spray for their moribund shooting, he was trying to be positive. Smacks of a guilty conscience to me.

Buckley has done well with this team. They are way ahead of where anyone expected. Perhaps it's not all Buckley; perhaps it's the players (at least in part). Is it the least bit possible that Buckley's biggest sin is underestimating his own team?! Is it the least bit possible that the Collingwood players are - dare we speak its name? - the Baby Bombers of 2015 (or might have been)? Or could have been? Are they so hung up on the process? Are they so hung up on 2016 that they throw out the 2015 Baby (Pies) with the bathwater?

Sure, it's a stretch. And yet ...

All year I've had a sense that the Hawks were not of the calibre of their teams of the last two years. That doesn't put them down in Carlton territory, more in the region of Geelong of the last two or three years: final eight material, still capable of creaming the bottom teams, but not top 4. The fact that we ran them so close confirms me in that view. We might not be at their exalted level - but neither are they. I reckon there are quite a few games lost because teams subscribe to the hype around once-great teams.

It's not as if we played badly. Significantly, Pendlebury was awarded BOG on one report I heard - ahead of Lewis and Rioli.

The wrap

The fans can only lament what might have been. I can't let go of this. It was our game for the taking.

Sources, Notes, Footnotes, References

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-match-centre/afl-live-collingwood-v-hawthorn-20150703-gi4xez.html