Finding the plot...losing the match
"Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way."
Thus Tolstoy begins Anna Karenina, introducing us to the troubled Oblonsky family. Equally though, he could be referring to Hawthorn - the Family Club, and footy fans in general. Fans of winning teams are all alike, grinning manically and chanting cheerily over their team’s triumphs, while fans of losing teams, such as Hawthorn in recent weeks, all find their own way to be unhappy, each attributing blame to a range of different factors.
For some it’s injuries: Hodge, Birchall and Bailey before Sunday and Gibson during the match. For others it’s the umpires, and though I can't pinpoint a particular decision in Sunday’s match, I’m sure if I ran a forensic eye over the game I’d find several decisive howlers. For some it’s the backline, who basically ceased to function after Gibson went off, though Schoenmakers or 'The Cobbler' as one of my correspondents has dubbed him, was one of our best. For others, however, it’s the game plan – why is it that a Hawthorn player streaming out of the centre with the ball so often has to stop and go backwards or out wide? Where is our forward line? Why have we suddenly adopted a Ross Lyon game plan of having everyone strung across the half back line? Some are blaming the person who decided to trade Josh Kennedy, who turned in yet another blinder against Hawthorn, while for others, such as Hawthorn president Andrew Newbold and coach Clarko, it’s the fixture – or 'the fix' as we’re coming to refer to it at Hawthorn.
For me it’s the tribunal – why was Adam Goodes playing in the first place? Having been suspended for a week over his sliding tackle, he challenged the ban unsuccessfully, yet his suspension wasn’t extended to cover the Hawthorn match. Any other player who challenges unsuccessfully seems to be hit with an extra week’s ban, but not Adam Goodes it seems. This complaint is not based on a deep understanding of the abiding principles, frameworks and legal nuances of the tribunal process, but a weary resignation that yet again Adam Goodes had played a significant role in Sydney beating Hawthorn and it would have been to our considerable advantage had he not been there.
Whatever the source of the problem, and perhaps it is simply that Sydney is a very good team who played better on the day, the Hawks are now in trouble with two wins and three losses, and what appeared as a reasonably comfortable proposition of playing St.Kilda on Saturday night looms suddenly as a harrowing ordeal.
Suckling inbounds
Without the benefit of Foxtel I drove to my brother’s house to watch the game. Or rather I 'inbounded' my brother’s house. I was running late so heard the early minutes on the car radio and when Sydney scored their first behind, the ABC 774 commentator informed us that "Suckling will inbound the footy". Two minutes in and already a new verb had been coined. As it turned out, this was the most inventive act by a Hawthorn player all day.
I’m at a bit of a loss to explain how the match unfolded. Everything was going so well: Roughhead was kicking goals – he had five in the first half, Hale snagged a couple, and we were running the ball reasonably well. Sure O’Keefe was playing well for the Swans, but Hodge moved onto him. And with a four goal lead at half time we still had the prospect of Cyril and Buddy getting involved. The kids got their own game of corridor footy going during the break, my brother and I opened another beer and all seemed reasonably satisfactory.
In the third quarter Hawthorn got the first clearance and for a fleeting moment we looked set for a continuation of the first half. But those few possessions we managed before the first turnover proved to be our only period of dominance for the quarter. After that we simply couldn’t get the ball.
Sydney controlled every passage of play, and if the ball did end up in dispute, it seemed to sit up and bounce into the arms of a Sydney player or bobble just out of reach of a Hawthorn player. Sydney was playing well and Hawthorn, well, they didn’t have the ball so there was no way of telling how they might be playing. The Hawks were flat-footed and hesitant, and with Gibson injured, Swans forwards were pulling down marks like their feathered counterparts in the Botanical gardens pull down morsels of bread tossed by children.
Scoreless for the quarter, we were suddenly behind. And when the Swans effortlessly slotted the first goal of the final quarter within seconds of the restart, the kids sensed what was up and resumed their own game of corridor footy. At least someone in a Hawks jumper could get possession in that game.
Success
I’m currently reading a biography of Martin Amis by Richard Bradford, and watching the Hawks Swans clash on Sunday put me in mind of Amis’ 1978 novel Success (note Hawks premiership year and title of book). In that book Amis introduces us to two foster brothers, Gregory Riding and Terry Service, who alternate as narrators over the course of a calendar year. In the first half of the book Riding struts through life with imperious and effortless command, racking up triumphs and keeping glamorous company, while Service ekes out a lowly cribbing existence of underachievement.
But halfway through the book the reader’s perception and understanding start to turn and as the dual (and duelling) narratives play out, it slowly emerges that things are not altogether as they seem - Riding’s confidence and strut are shown up as a mirage without substance, while Service emerges as the more solidly successful – the two exchanging position relative to one another by the book’s conclusion. I don’t think I need to embroider the metaphor any further to get the point across: Hawthorn’s first half conquests were all mirage while Sydney slowly turned things around and ended as runaway winners. In a way, we found the plot, or a plot, while simultaneously losing it.
The book is an early Amis masterpiece that is thoroughly enjoyable. The match less so. And if you think I’m taking refuge in abstractions as a way of dealing with defeat, you’re absolutely right. You’ll know the season is really going badly when I resort to Shakespeare’s tragedies to illustrate the on field action. Though I suppose Ana Karenina is no more comforting – SPOILER ALERT – she throws herself under a train at the end.
Let’s look to happier times and this week’s match against the Saints. Comfortingly, the train to St.Kilda has long been replaced by the light rail, so drastic acts of literary homage are unlikely.
Elsewhere
After the Hawks game we switched over to the Richmond v Eagles match (my brother barracks for the Tiges – no don’t ask) and I’d say within three seconds we saw a Selwood brother fling himself back histrionically to overplay for a 'too high' free, which he duly received.
Are the umpires the only ones who don’t see this? No, as it turns out. In Saturday night’s clash between Brisbane and Geelong, Joel Selwood and Andrew Raines exchanged blows, with Selwood going down after Raines threw a retaliatory punch. While Raines has been suspended for two weeks, Selwood has not even been cited. The tribunal has ruled that his blow was not of sufficient force to warrant a report, whereas Raines’ blow had clearly knocked Selwood to the ground; therefore it must have been a strong hit.
This may well be true, but a casual observer of the game could equally argue that Selwood going to ground is hardly indicative of excessive force – but more likely to be an attempt by him to milk yet another free kick. Media commentators like to fantasise about how tough backyard football at the Selwood household must have been when the three brothers were growing up, but there's enough circumstantial evidence now to suggest that the ball hardly ever got into play as all three of them writhed on the ground appealing for a free kick.
Final scores: Sydney 16 10 106 d Hawthorn 10 9 69
Buddy goal tally - 0 = total 11
What we liked: Bruce McAvaney commentating in the Richmond Eagles match: as Rosa measured a kick out of a pack, Bruce said, "Rosa with a little squeezy lovely one" Not something you'd necessarily want taken out of context.
No comments:
Post a Comment