The Roar
The Roar

AFL
Advertisement

On brilliance and structure: AFL Round 1 recap

Anthony new author
Roar Rookie
24th March, 2014
2

On Sunday afternoon, hamstrung by a wretched AFL schedule that left me without a live game to sink my teeth into, I ignored both my overgrown lawns and the various species of bacteria that have domiciled themselves in my bathroom and invested myself in replays of the Saturday double-header.

There was the predictable entree in Launceston and the intriguing – if dour – Etihad main course.

This unscheduled inquisition had clear terms of reference; what was it that separated Premiership favourites Hawthorn from the mid-table Brisbane Lions and the cellar-dwelling Melbourne and St Kilda?

This isn’t the Premier League, where a deluge of petro-dollars can drag a team from relative obscurity to table-topping giants in a few short years. Our salary cap and draft system is designed to ensure that equality – the AFL’s favourite buzzword of recent seasons – is primary.

So how can it be that, with equal player spending and the compensatory nature of the draft, Melbourne and St Kilda can be so many grades below Hawthorn? That even Brisbane, a side for whom finals was a distinct possibility on that frantic final day of the 2013 home-and-away season, can be 40 points short of the reigning premiers?

In reality, there are any number of reasons: playing stocks, coaching, strategies, injuries and depth just to scratch the surface. Every possibility is analysed in the various prognostications of experts, but is there one aspect that matters above all else?

Looking purely at the Launceston scoreboard fails to give the full picture; it was a largely see-sawing contest, momentum swinging between a nascent group of Lions and a Hawthorn team that seemed to rarely leave third gear.

In the end, and perhaps expectedly, the Hawks ran away with it; an eight goal final term creating a margin that belied the contest presented by these Lion cubs.

Advertisement

The Demons’ early dominance was almost cruel to a supporter group who have endured several assumed nadirs before their club somehow found a way to full further. This year, a new coach and a pre-season win over Richmond conspired in restoring hope; hope that stumbled in the gaping hole where a forward line should have been before limping off the ground in the corked thigh of Tom McDonald.

The eventual 18-point margin complimented the Demons; a result more of a lack of scoring than competitiveness on their part.

What I saw in the juxtaposition between the two engagements was confirmation that bad teams rely on players, while good teams rely on systems.

The thing that separates Hawthorn from lesser teams is not skill or individual brilliance, but a system which delegates to each player a responsibility. In each Hawthorn game, there are thousands of precise player movements, like cogs in a machine, each designed to create space or time or options. Individuals become less important, because each is merely playing a role – the parts become substitutable.

This was evident in Launceston, a game in which Brisbane enjoyed some success – just about levelling the inside-50 count and the clearances, usually a sign of a much closer game than the one we witnessed.

What separated Hawthorn from Brisbane was the effectiveness of those stats. Hawthorn’s 53 forward 50 entries yielded 34 scoring shots, compared to Brisbane’s 26 from 50. This was not coincidence or profligacy; it was Hawthorn’s knowledge of where each other would be, a system that is now rusted on to players who can execute it almost flawlessly.

While Brisbane’s clearances appeared to be largely haphazard bombs into Jonathon Brown – a reliance on a player – Hawthorn would handball backwards, creating space for an assured pass forward.

Advertisement

There was always time, always options, and this was reflected in an almost doubling of marks inside 50. Which leads us back to St Kilda and Melbourne, and what exactly we can glean from their encounter.

In football, circumstances sometimes conspire to make winning much harder than it would otherwise be. That this occurred to both combatants on Saturday night is not in doubt, St Kilda were largely stripped of their midfield, save for Farren Ray who looked a class above. Melbourne, meanwhile, were hit by a spate of injuries to their spine, leaving them severely undermanned up forward.

St Kilda’s win was one of grit rather than class, fortune rather than skill. They scrapped forward and pounced on errors, Nick Riewoldt’s one-man show securing the points in a game that could be called a nil-all draw for all the significance it will have on the final ladder.

This was not a strategic victory for either side, the final result was more a reflection of Tom McDonald’s thigh than anything else.

Melbourne will finish above St Kilda this year. In their game we saw the skeleton of a system, deliberate movement and exhilarating transition play. That they had 10 more entries showed Mark Jamar, Chris Dawes and Jesse Hogan will not be starved of supply this year, as they were last.

Aside from sloppy execution and some costly turnovers – James Frawley’s dropped handball in the middle was a lowlight, and Nathan Jones’ contested ball value is tempered by a lack of quality disposal – Melbourne controlled possession and had, at least in the midfield, the better structure.

Execution and confidence will come, and depth is required, but Melbourne of 2014 are a team who at least know what they are trying to do.

Advertisement

Even with returning stars, St Kilda should not expect too many more nights like that this year. Individual brilliance can win games, but it doesn’t make finals teams. Nick Riewoldt’s shaky knees can only bear so much of the load.

close