We do play the Giants at the Gabba this season, Round 22, we also play the Giants in a Round 7 away game in Canberra.
Interesting read but we sent Charlie Curnow to full back for the last 5-6 minutes of the first quarter to stem the bleeding... I don't think Fagan should be crucified for playing a spare defender when our full forward trundled down to the other end of the field to help out the defense should he?This was a complicated game to analyse. So as I am a simpleton I have broken the game up into what I saw as its 5 phases. Also the stat graphics available on Twitter have improved again, so it's not all bad.
Phase #1 - Q1 0:00 to Q1 24:00 (Brisbane 7-1 43 v Carlton 1-0 6)
Watching this unfold I thought "this is some of the best footy I've ever seen". "Frightening" was the word that came to mind, because that was the word people used to describe our dynasty team back in the day. This was every bit as good as that.
The next morning I thought I was overexaggerating until I heard people in the media say exactly the same thing. It was brutal, relentless and skilful, but the feature I noted the most was our decision making. It has improved out of sight to the point that our players barely made a wrong call ball in hand, or defending, during this entire period. Whatever we want to say about our coaches, this period of the game was proof enough that our coaching group has a fair idea what they are doing.
By the time this period ended, we'd kicked 5 goals in 5 minutes of playing time, Carlton was absolutely on the rack, ripe to be killed off there and then, yet...
Phase #2 - Q1 24:00 to QT (Brisbane 0-1 1 v Carlton 1-0 6)
At this point we put a man behind the ball! I wasn't even watching for it, but I suddenly realised we weren't able to lock the ball in our forward line quite as easily, and a quick count of players at the first mid-zone boundary throw-in revealed why. How do I know it was our decision to play a spare and not Carlton's? It's because we only had 5 forwards. Had Carlton initiated it we'd have had 6 forwards to their 7 defenders. To me, in the moment this beggared belief. I've doctored the score worm for the game:
View attachment 1926950
This rudimentary defacing of a chart is something that is used (seriously) in finance by traders called a "channel". While an investment's price remains inside that channel, it is considered to be following a trend. Once it breaks out of that channel, the trend is considered broken. Traders often use this as their signals to buy or sell. It's not always that simple - if it was, everyone would be doing it. But it's a legitimate and very commonly used guide.
In a footy sense, this "channel" was our momentum. We were absolutely destroying Carlton, but then we essentially neutered ourselves by ceasing to do what was working for us, and switching to a more defensive game style. You can see from that channel, had our momentum persisted for the rest of the quarter, our lead would have been in the vicinity of 50-60 points (those horizontal lines are 30 points each). Yes, Carlton still may have come back from there, but as we saw on Saturday down at Carrara, there are only so many goals you can kick in a hurry before your comeback starts to run out of steam, and (equally importantly) the other team is able to gather itself and respond.
We saw our lead of 46 points become a 3 point deficit. That's a 49 point turnaround. On Saturday, Gold Coast saw its 67 point lead become a 24 point lead. That's a 43 point turnaround. It is absolutely in the same ball park - the key difference is that the Suns kept the foot on the pedal long enough to create an impossible margin to overcome.
An example much closer to home came in Round 21 of 2022, also against Carlton. Our 57 point lead at 3 quarter time became just 15, with just enough time for the Blues to pinch the win. But at 15 points down, Carlton still had to attack. This meant taking risks, giving us opportunities to score the other way. Eventually we did, kicking the last 3 goals to win by 33 points. But imagine if our lead had only been 45 points that day at 3 quarter time, instead of 57.
So I really believe that even though the 2nd and 3rd quarters have been highlighted by all and sundry, our problems started in the 1st quarter, and I would go as far as to say that going defensive in the first quarter was one of the 3 things that cost us the win. Even the goal they kicked during this time - it came from our skill error caused by having too many blokes in the same space. Oscar dropped a mark when he should have left it for a team mate, got pinged for holding the ball and they converted.
To me it speaks to Fages' inherent conservatism. We have heard him say on multiple occasions how he feels like he coaches better when he thinks we're going to lose. I can absolutely relate, and this goes way back to my (very bad) playing days. I would never feel confident of victory until time on of the last quarter almost. But it seems the way he (or he and the coaching group) and I manifest these emotions are very different.
The impression I seem to get from Fages runs something along the lines of, "OK we've had a good period, we've probably got a bit lucky, the other mob are probably due to get on top now, let's park the bus a bit". What sort of message does this send to our players? "Our coach doesn't think we're actually that good and what we've been doing for the last 10 minutes has been lucky bullsh!t"?
I just don't rate this philosophy. Have more faith!
I once read/heard (can't remember which) a fascinating interview with Adam Gilchrist. Those of us lucky enough to remember his entire career probably remember him as a freewheeling, devil-may-care player who was often at his best in a crisis, changed the cricket world and set new standards for wicketkeeper-batsmen. But this clashed almost completely with how he came across as a person. When he was interviewed, he mentioned how he was absolutely terrified of getting out. So his batting philosophy became "strewth, these guys are pretty good, I'd better get em quickly because it's only a matter of time before they get me". So even though it seems counterintuitive, the fact he respected his opponents so much actually became the catalyst for him to bat the way he did.
I'd like to see us embrace this philosophy, instead of the reverse. Yes, it's important to respect your opponent. No, this doesn't mean you have to put men behind the ball. It should mean you take every opportunity to put the foot on the throat and drive your opponent into the dirt. Because if you don't get them, they might get you, and we saw exactly that on Friday night.
Don't get me wrong, a spare man in defence has its place. But (a) after kicking 5 goals in 5 minutes is not the time, (b) "the end of a quarter" is definitely not a good default setting and (c) we are not good at executing that tactic, as has been discussed to death here over summer. We do need to become better at it, but it's probably something best learned in-game. We'd probably need to do it for a month, like a full 120 minutes each week for 4 weeks, and while we're in the business of winning flags, we probably (hopefully) won't get such a 4-week window.
Phase #3 - Q2 0:00 to Q2 12:44 (Brisbane 2-0 12 v Carlton 0-1 1)
Largely, we picked up where we left off in Phase #1, which was pleasing. On a scale of what we saw in the 1st quarter, this was about an 8 or 9 out of 10. Up by 43 points, Eric Hipwood took a cracking contested mark, and that's when the trouble started...
Phase #4 - Q2 12:44 to Q3 15:24 (Brisbane 0-5 5 v Carlton 8-4 52)
Hipwood missed, then Cameron missed twice, and I'm a bit trigger happy with these sorts of things but I could see the cracks opening up already. I could see us getting lazy, taking bad options, and literally toying with Carlton. But because Carlton were so so shot to bits by that point, even these bad options came off for a little while, hence we kept the ball in our front half and got shots at goal. It really was a Leigh Matthews' "tip of the iceberg" moment.
But eventually, we mucked around just long enough for Carlton to regain their balance in general play, and eventually the tide turned. This chart from WheeloRatings is a cracker. Have a look how much we dominated forward territory there in the middle of the quarter, even though we didn't kick a goal after 8 minutes:
View attachment 1927004
Then from time on, Carlton arguably controlled territory up to half time. The writing should have been on the wall by then - look at the 4 yellow bars to end the half.
The bizarre thing is that even to start the 3rd quarter, we had more of the ball in our front half than Carlton did. But Carlton took their chances, because we were lazy when they got it, as has been discussed by everyone, and this is the 2nd of the 3 things that cost us the match.
Then at some stage, our guys became desperate, all started going for the same ball (in the air and on the ground), running into each other, all trying to be the hero. So we completely overbalanced the other way.
But this graphic by itself should be enough to confirm to us as supporters that, strategically, our game plan will hold up against pretty much everyone this year, provided the players are able to put forth the effort to put it into practice.
Phase #5 - Q3 15:24 to FT (Brisbane 3-6 24 v Carlton 3-3 21)
Pleasingly, we were able to steady the ship mid-quarter. We didn't need 3 quarter time to come to sort ourselves out, which we might have needed in previous seasons. However, by then our confidence was pretty well shot and we had given Carlton a massive boost in that regard.
Besides the closeness of the scoreboard however this phase of the game was so underwhelming. Any semblance of game plan we had completely vanished, and the game was played completely on Carlton's terms. It looked like a Carlton game. Tough, tight, contested, straight lines, not much lateral ball use. The fact that despite this we largely controlled territory and the scoreboard (12 shots to 9) in this period, confirms my belief that Carlton are actually a bloody ordinary team strategically, and whatever they achieve this year will come on the back of hard work and a never-say-die attitude. Our kicking for goal let us down in this phase of the game, which is the 3rd thing that cost us victory.
Dalions referenced this period of the game in his very excellent Round 1 preview. Whilst I agree with most of it, I do think the fact that our game plan almost completely disintegrated into a one-on-one slog fest had a lot to do with our fitness issues, which I note Michael Whiting on the Roar Deal has FINALLY had the temerity to go on-air with (WE'VE HIT THE MAINSTREAM briztoon). Yes, we may have had a pressure rating of 201. But a quick review of Champion Data's pressure definitions is revealing:
View attachment 1927026
This demonstrates that a missed tackle (simply making contact with an opponent) is worth maximum points. So I remain very sceptical of pressure rating as a relevant measure of effort. This primarily indicates to me that we paid a reasonable degree of attention to our direct opponent. However there was absolutely little spread, or initiative to create space by using the width of the ground. And how many times did we kick out on the full under minimal pressure? Those were all tired, exhausted kicks. We didn't see any of those from Carlton players.
Joey Montagna also went to town tonight on our inability to slow the game in the final 6-7 minutes of the final quarter. It's worth a watch, but I'm not so dark on them for this. Yes, some players on the field were calling for us to slow the game down, and the ball-carrier was ignoring them. This says to me we weren't all on the same page and we definitely panicked. But as above, there was still 6-7 minutes to go. We only held a 5 point lead. To my thinking, it was still appropriate at that stage to seek another goal. We also didn't play with a spare man at any stage during that period, which, considering we did in the first quarter, I find extremely strange. In fact, Carlton had a spare man in their forward line when Harry McKay took that mark. How on earth does that happen!?
If only we had played that way for the whole 1st quarter.
Each to their own. I would have liked to see us follow him down there, play 7 forwards if necessary. We were winning basically every contest up to that point, so maintaining a contest situation wherever possible made sense at that stage of the game.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
Right you are re giants at home
This was a complicated game to analyse. So as I am a simpleton I have broken the game up into what I saw as its 5 phases. Also the stat graphics available on Twitter have improved again, so it's not all bad.
Phase #1 - Q1 0:00 to Q1 24:00 (Brisbane 7-1 43 v Carlton 1-0 6)
Watching this unfold I thought "this is some of the best footy I've ever seen". "Frightening" was the word that came to mind, because that was the word people used to describe our dynasty team back in the day. This was every bit as good as that.
The next morning I thought I was overexaggerating until I heard people in the media say exactly the same thing. It was brutal, relentless and skilful, but the feature I noted the most was our decision making. It has improved out of sight to the point that our players barely made a wrong call ball in hand, or defending, during this entire period. Whatever we want to say about our coaches, this period of the game was proof enough that our coaching group has a fair idea what they are doing.
By the time this period ended, we'd kicked 5 goals in 5 minutes of playing time, Carlton was absolutely on the rack, ripe to be killed off there and then, yet...
Phase #2 - Q1 24:00 to QT (Brisbane 0-1 1 v Carlton 1-0 6)
At this point we put a man behind the ball! I wasn't even watching for it, but I suddenly realised we weren't able to lock the ball in our forward line quite as easily, and a quick count of players at the first mid-zone boundary throw-in revealed why. How do I know it was our decision to play a spare and not Carlton's? It's because we only had 5 forwards. Had Carlton initiated it we'd have had 6 forwards to their 7 defenders. To me, in the moment this beggared belief. I've doctored the score worm for the game:
View attachment 1926950
This rudimentary defacing of a chart is something that is used (seriously) in finance by traders called a "channel". While an investment's price remains inside that channel, it is considered to be following a trend. Once it breaks out of that channel, the trend is considered broken. Traders often use this as their signals to buy or sell. It's not always that simple - if it was, everyone would be doing it. But it's a legitimate and very commonly used guide.
In a footy sense, this "channel" was our momentum. We were absolutely destroying Carlton, but then we essentially neutered ourselves by ceasing to do what was working for us, and switching to a more defensive game style. You can see from that channel, had our momentum persisted for the rest of the quarter, our lead would have been in the vicinity of 50-60 points (those horizontal lines are 30 points each). Yes, Carlton still may have come back from there, but as we saw on Saturday down at Carrara, there are only so many goals you can kick in a hurry before your comeback starts to run out of steam, and (equally importantly) the other team is able to gather itself and respond.
We saw our lead of 46 points become a 3 point deficit. That's a 49 point turnaround. On Saturday, Gold Coast saw its 67 point lead become a 24 point lead. That's a 43 point turnaround. It is absolutely in the same ball park - the key difference is that the Suns kept the foot on the pedal long enough to create an impossible margin to overcome.
An example much closer to home came in Round 21 of 2022, also against Carlton. Our 57 point lead at 3 quarter time became just 15, with just enough time for the Blues to pinch the win. But at 15 points down, Carlton still had to attack. This meant taking risks, giving us opportunities to score the other way. Eventually we did, kicking the last 3 goals to win by 33 points. But imagine if our lead had only been 45 points that day at 3 quarter time, instead of 57.
So I really believe that even though the 2nd and 3rd quarters have been highlighted by all and sundry, our problems started in the 1st quarter, and I would go as far as to say that going defensive in the first quarter was one of the 3 things that cost us the win. Even the goal they kicked during this time - it came from our skill error caused by having too many blokes in the same space. Oscar dropped a mark when he should have left it for a team mate, got pinged for holding the ball and they converted.
To me it speaks to Fages' inherent conservatism. We have heard him say on multiple occasions how he feels like he coaches better when he thinks we're going to lose. I can absolutely relate, and this goes way back to my (very bad) playing days. I would never feel confident of victory until time on of the last quarter almost. But it seems the way he (or he and the coaching group) and I manifest these emotions are very different.
The impression I seem to get from Fages runs something along the lines of, "OK we've had a good period, we've probably got a bit lucky, the other mob are probably due to get on top now, let's park the bus a bit". What sort of message does this send to our players? "Our coach doesn't think we're actually that good and what we've been doing for the last 10 minutes has been lucky bullsh!t"?
I just don't rate this philosophy. Have more faith!
I once read/heard (can't remember which) a fascinating interview with Adam Gilchrist. Those of us lucky enough to remember his entire career probably remember him as a freewheeling, devil-may-care player who was often at his best in a crisis, changed the cricket world and set new standards for wicketkeeper-batsmen. But this clashed almost completely with how he came across as a person. When he was interviewed, he mentioned how he was absolutely terrified of getting out. So his batting philosophy became "strewth, these guys are pretty good, I'd better get em quickly because it's only a matter of time before they get me". So even though it seems counterintuitive, the fact he respected his opponents so much actually became the catalyst for him to bat the way he did.
I'd like to see us embrace this philosophy, instead of the reverse. Yes, it's important to respect your opponent. No, this doesn't mean you have to put men behind the ball. It should mean you take every opportunity to put the foot on the throat and drive your opponent into the dirt. Because if you don't get them, they might get you, and we saw exactly that on Friday night.
Don't get me wrong, a spare man in defence has its place. But (a) after kicking 5 goals in 5 minutes is not the time, (b) "the end of a quarter" is definitely not a good default setting and (c) we are not good at executing that tactic, as has been discussed to death here over summer. We do need to become better at it, but it's probably something best learned in-game. We'd probably need to do it for a month, like a full 120 minutes each week for 4 weeks, and while we're in the business of winning flags, we probably (hopefully) won't get such a 4-week window.
Phase #3 - Q2 0:00 to Q2 12:44 (Brisbane 2-0 12 v Carlton 0-1 1)
Largely, we picked up where we left off in Phase #1, which was pleasing. On a scale of what we saw in the 1st quarter, this was about an 8 or 9 out of 10. Up by 43 points, Eric Hipwood took a cracking contested mark, and that's when the trouble started...
Phase #4 - Q2 12:44 to Q3 15:24 (Brisbane 0-5 5 v Carlton 8-4 52)
Hipwood missed, then Cameron missed twice, and I'm a bit trigger happy with these sorts of things but I could see the cracks opening up already. I could see us getting lazy, taking bad options, and literally toying with Carlton. But because Carlton were so so shot to bits by that point, even these bad options came off for a little while, hence we kept the ball in our front half and got shots at goal. It really was a Leigh Matthews' "tip of the iceberg" moment.
But eventually, we mucked around just long enough for Carlton to regain their balance in general play, and eventually the tide turned. This chart from WheeloRatings is a cracker. Have a look how much we dominated forward territory there in the middle of the quarter, even though we didn't kick a goal after 8 minutes:
View attachment 1927004
Then from time on, Carlton arguably controlled territory up to half time. The writing should have been on the wall by then - look at the 4 yellow bars to end the half.
The bizarre thing is that even to start the 3rd quarter, we had more of the ball in our front half than Carlton did. But Carlton took their chances, because we were lazy when they got it, as has been discussed by everyone, and this is the 2nd of the 3 things that cost us the match.
Then at some stage, our guys became desperate, all started going for the same ball (in the air and on the ground), running into each other, all trying to be the hero. So we completely overbalanced the other way.
But this graphic by itself should be enough to confirm to us as supporters that, strategically, our game plan will hold up against pretty much everyone this year, provided the players are able to put forth the effort to put it into practice.
Phase #5 - Q3 15:24 to FT (Brisbane 3-6 24 v Carlton 3-3 21)
Pleasingly, we were able to steady the ship mid-quarter. We didn't need 3 quarter time to come to sort ourselves out, which we might have needed in previous seasons. However, by then our confidence was pretty well shot and we had given Carlton a massive boost in that regard.
Besides the closeness of the scoreboard however this phase of the game was so underwhelming. Any semblance of game plan we had completely vanished, and the game was played completely on Carlton's terms. It looked like a Carlton game. Tough, tight, contested, straight lines, not much lateral ball use. The fact that despite this we largely controlled territory and the scoreboard (12 shots to 9) in this period, confirms my belief that Carlton are actually a bloody ordinary team strategically, and whatever they achieve this year will come on the back of hard work and a never-say-die attitude. Our kicking for goal let us down in this phase of the game, which is the 3rd thing that cost us victory.
Dalions referenced this period of the game in his very excellent Round 1 preview. Whilst I agree with most of it, I do think the fact that our game plan almost completely disintegrated into a one-on-one slog fest had a lot to do with our fitness issues, which I note Michael Whiting on the Roar Deal has FINALLY had the temerity to go on-air with (WE'VE HIT THE MAINSTREAM briztoon). Yes, we may have had a pressure rating of 201. But a quick review of Champion Data's pressure definitions is revealing:
View attachment 1927026
This demonstrates that a missed tackle (simply making contact with an opponent) is worth maximum points. So I remain very sceptical of pressure rating as a relevant measure of effort. This primarily indicates to me that we paid a reasonable degree of attention to our direct opponent. However there was absolutely little spread, or initiative to create space by using the width of the ground. And how many times did we kick out on the full under minimal pressure? Those were all tired, exhausted kicks. We didn't see any of those from Carlton players.
Joey Montagna also went to town tonight on our inability to slow the game in the final 6-7 minutes of the final quarter. It's worth a watch, but I'm not so dark on them for this. Yes, some players on the field were calling for us to slow the game down, and the ball-carrier was ignoring them. This says to me we weren't all on the same page and we definitely panicked. But as above, there was still 6-7 minutes to go. We only held a 5 point lead. To my thinking, it was still appropriate at that stage to seek another goal. We also didn't play with a spare man at any stage during that period, which, considering we did in the first quarter, I find extremely strange. In fact, Carlton had a spare man in their forward line when Harry McKay took that mark. How on earth does that happen!?
If only we had played that way for the whole 1st quarter.
That Demons team was all banged up, and couldn’t run out the game due to their injuries. Gawn was done, Petracca played with a hairline fracture in one leg, there were others that I can’t remember. I certainly don’t put that win down to us being a fitter team, just healthier.
They also had a big last hurrah letdown when they threw everything and should've beaten the Pies and blew it. They were ravaged physically and mentally
Sounds like Joey Montagana has been reading my posts. Could you imagine Daniher getting a clear run at the footy during the last contest in the GF? Would never happen because Collingwood wouldn’t allow it.
‘What have they learnt’: Stars on notice as damning vision shows Lions blew it late... just like in GF
‘What have they learnt’: Stars on notice as damning vision shows Lions blew it late... just like in GFwww.foxsports.com.au
Pretty good summary
Also can see in the last piece of footage Lester failing to drop into the hole in front of McKay and Curnow. Needed to call our spare man over to guard Cottrell and drop in front of the obvious targets.
I still rate that win as one of the best during the Fagan Era.
Any away win in a Final should be up on a pedestal. Arguably for any club. That win is right up there with our Preliminary Final win in 2003.
without our full forward and first ruck as well
Like it or lump it, Daniher did have a pretty good year last year.
Joe or Oscar
He doesn’t offer much of a contest
Well I guess for starters McKay offered quite da bit more of a contest on the weekend, especially when up against Joe
joey dynamite kicked more goals than king last year whilst also doing ruck chop outs so im not sure what point youre making
