Unofficial Preview JLT 2: Brisbane Lions vs. Gold Coast Suns

[tate13]

You seem like you are itching to ignite a fight and as a result are reading things into posts that aren't there.

Absolutely not. It just seems if some people’s observations aren’t glowing, they’re spoken down to.

I find that by paying attention to how the game is played, then I actually have some accurate insight to offer.

I made my post and you chose to insult my observations or my knowledge. Just because they don't align with yours, doesn't make them wrong. I've read your posts. If you think you have accurate things to say, that's very good. Well done on being a self proclaimed student of the game.

 

[WA Lion]

Biggest psotiive to come out of today is no injuries. It was a typical wet weather game. Scrappy skills, lot's of free kicks, a few lucky goals, lot's of soccer kicks. Not too much we can read into that one. I thought we did see some great endeavour from some of the young guns, however, e.g. Rayner, McCluggage and Berry and the likes of Zorko, Taylor, Robinson and Bell all played well. Main things to take out of today are no injuries and the fact that we got some miles into the legs of the boys, particularly guys like Robinson and Christensen who will be better for the run.

In the long run I wonder if we will actually benefit from the additional bumps/bruises and soreness that the boys will feel tomorrow. No reason to play bruise free footy in R1 after being exposed to today's conditions. It does of course detract from practising ball movement but there may be benefits

 

[lionshine]

We could have a handy mosquito fleet with Cameron, Robinson, Christensen and Rayner applying manic defensive pressure and some bone crunching, ferocious tackles in our forward half. All 4 are dangerous in front of the big sticks as well. It will be fun watching those four build some chemistry and consistency over the course of the home and away season.

The return of Beams will add some much need experience and class to our midfield unit alongside Zorko. Bell will get an early chance to show what he can do in there come the season proper. Bundy and Robbo will probably pinch hit likewise Cameron and Rayner I suppose. Other than that we'll be looking to the younger brigade of Mathieson/Berry/McCluggage/Keays/Allison/Bailey unless Bastinac can step up again. We desperately need to add another gun midfielder. Would be great to attract a top class midfielder at the end of the year aged 23-25 but that is unlikely. We'll more than likely have to look towards the draft for another class, contested ball winning mid.

Would be very handy if one or both of Bailey/Starcevich can step up and become legitimate, quality midfielders.

 

[POBT]

I made my post and you chose to insult my observations or my knowledge. Just because they don't align with yours, doesn't make them wrong. I've read your posts. If you think you have accurate things to say, that's very good. Well done on being a self proclaimed student of the game.

You were told why you were wrong and you ignored it. Not every opinion is equal. You are wrong. Don’t play the victim now.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Absolutely not. It just seems if some people’s observations aren’t glowing, they’re spoken down to.

Like I said, textbook case of reading things that aren't there.

All my post was saying was that it isn't the sort of game that is going to change anyone's mind for good or bad. If you expect us to be terrible, great, or just show moderate improvement this year, then there is enough in that game you can point to as evidence to support that view. Then I merely reiterated my personal view that we will show modest improvement this year.

Anything else you've read into that is on you, not me. I sense that your blood is up from disputes you are currently having with other posters parallel to this one, but yeah, people generally don't like being accused of malice when there is absolutely none intended.

 

[WhiteLionFeva]

Rayner did some good things, most notably his tackling, but I'm not convinced he has shown enough to get a start for round 1.

 

[tate13]

You were told why you were wrong and you ignored it. Not every opinion is equal. You are wrong. Don’t play the victim now.

I don't agree with your opinion, nor do I agree with your assertion that you have accurate things to say. What was I wrong about? Saying we have a lack of forward targets is a reasonable observation. Other people are allowed to post their observations. They'll sometimes differ from yours. There's no need to insult their knowledge.

 

[Milux]

Rayner did some good things, most notably his tackling, but I'm not convinced he has shown enough to get a start for round 1.

Im with you on this one.

 

[jackess]

Rayner did some good things, most notably his tackling, but I'm not convinced he has shown enough to get a start for round 1.

In a better team he wouldn’t but after you name the best dozen there aren’t many who have shown much this pre-season. It’s Rayner or someone like Keays.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Rayner did some good things, most notably his tackling, but I'm not convinced he has shown enough to get a start for round 1.

As we build there will still be opportunities for certain players who haven't exactly beaten down the door for selection. If it's determined that Rayner (a blue chip commodity) would benefit highly from continual senior exposure, he could still be in the round 1 team. 50/50 for me right now.

 

[POBT]

I don't agree with your opinion, nor do I agree with your assertion that you have accurate things to say. What was I wrong about? Saying we have a lack of forward targets is a reasonable observation. Other people are allowed to post their observations. They'll sometimes differ from yours. There's no need to insult their knowledge.

You didn’t say forward targets. You said a functioning forward line. A forward line (and that term really is archaic anyway) is far more than its ability to be a marking target.

The point remains that our ability to hit the scoreboard, particularly in the second half of the year, was very good, despite the fact that we couldn’t win the football. That simply doesn’t happen if your forward line is dysfunctional. A forward line needs to be judged both as an entirety and in the context of the style of game the coaching staff want the club to play. In the last 10 games, on both fronts, our forward structures were far from our biggest problem, and, in most observers’ eyes, our greatest strength.

You don’t need to agree with me. But I still think you are wrong. And your dismissive tone when the above was pointed out (albeit less fulsomely than I just have) indicates that either you aren’t willing to consider alternative points of view or you lack football knowledge.

I don’t really care if you were wounded by my comments. I’ll happily go back to not posting on this site if you feel so aggrieved.

 

[Happy_Neale]

Glad I didn't go to the game like I was intending to.

Caught the second half and saw us kick one goal total. Actually thought we played okay considering the conditions. Bad kicking is bad footy, but at least we created 20 scoring opportunities for ourselves. You simply can't draw conclusions about the season based on today, but it was pleasing to win scoring shots, contested footy (second half) and (I think) tackles for the day. If we can back that up with the improved ball movement we had last season we might be alright.

Think we can really give the Saints a crack in round one on the dry Etihad deck. Will be nice to see Hipwood do his thing on a dry deck and see our mosquito fleet forward line in action.

 

[tate13]

You didn’t say forward targets. You said a functioning forward line. A forward line (and that term really is archaic anyway) is far more than its ability to be a marking target.

The point remains that our ability to hit the scoreboard, particularly in the second half of the year, was very good, despite the fact that we couldn’t win the football. That simply doesn’t happen if your forward line is dysfunctional. A forward line needs to be judged both as an entirety and in the context of the style of game the coaching staff want the club to play. In the last 10 games, on both fronts, our forward structures were far from our biggest problem, and, in most observers’ eyes, our greatest strength.

You don’t need to agree with me. But I still think you are wrong. And your dismissive tone when the above was pointed out (albeit less fulsomely than I just have) indicates that either you aren’t willing to consider alternative points of view or you lack football knowledge.

I don’t really care if you were wounded by my comments. I’ll happily go back to not posting on this site if you feel so aggrieved.

And I think our goals came through other avenues. Zorko, Beams and Bastinac were 3 of our top 5 goal scorers. I don't classify them as forwards. I don't think we had a functioning forward line, but rather a very good midfield group capable of bridging a gap. A structure from a stoppage in the 50 is different to a forward line which is presented with the ball at pace.

Your comments didn't wound me. As I said, I don't pull out the notebook and jot down notes to increase my football knowledge when I see your posts.

 

[POBT]

Bastinac played half forward. Zorko went forward. Beams went forward. They were all part of our forward structure.

 

[tate13]

Bastinac played half forward. Zorko went forward. Beams went forward. They were all part of our forward structure.

And structure differs from a forward line. Yes they went forward, but they were a stopgap and would be a stretch to say they were in our main forward line. We have the makings of the most potent small forward line in the competition, we just need a couple of good targets to a) try and hit up and b) bring the ball to ground.
The forward line from a stoppage is fine. Entry into 50 is and has been a problem. Defensive pressure to keep it in is a strength, we'd be even better if we could make defenders uneasy.

 

[POBT]

And structure differs from a forward line. Yes they went forward, but they were a stopgap and would be a stretch to say they were in our main forward line. We have the makings of the most potent small forward line in the competition, we just need a couple of good targets to a) try and hit up and b) bring the ball to ground.
The forward line from a stoppage is fine. Entry into 50 is and has been a problem. Defensive pressure to keep it in is a strength, we'd be even better if we could make defenders uneasy.

This is the problem. You seem to have this view that a forward setup is static at 6 players named there. It isn’t. We would have had at least 10 guys run through there. You have to judge that in totality. And it simply doesn’t make sense to argue that it is dysfunctional when our scoring was so effective given the lack of supply in terms of ball winning.

Would it be better if Hipwood and Walker were superstars? Of course. But the group, in its entirety, demonstrated it’s effectiveness last year.

 

[tate13]

This is the problem. You seem to have this view that a forward setup is static at 6 players named there. It isn’t. We would have had at least 10 guys run through there. You have to judge that in totality. And it simply doesn’t make sense to argue that it is dysfunctional when our scoring was so effective given the lack of supply in terms of ball winning.

Would it be better if Hipwood and Walker were superstars? Of course. But the group, in its entirety, demonstrated it’s effectiveness last year.

I’m fully aware it’s not a set 6 anymore. I’m saying that when we get the ball on a fast break or from a centre clearance we are devoid of options. I don’t think Walker is the answer. Hipwood is the man we need, but it’s still a way off.

 

[POBT]

I’m fully aware it’s not a set 6 anymore. I’m saying that when we get the ball on a fast break or from a centre clearance we are devoid of options. I don’t think Walker is the answer. Hipwood is the man we need, but it’s still a way off.

Then perhaps your original comments were best directed at our key position forwards. Even then, I’d disagree that it is a major issue given the way the game is now played but at least that is arguable.

 

[tate13]

Then perhaps your original comments were best directed at our key position forwards. Even then, I’d disagree that it is a major issue given the way the game is now played but at least that is arguable.

They were...
I said we were still without a target, Walker is impotent and Hipwood is green.

 

[a mayes ing]

Alright, just finished watching.
Selfish side that just wants to blast from 50 rather than hit up a target or put it to the top of the square. McCluggage is a serial offender of this. Bastinac used to be great looking insdie.

Rayner probably doesn't deserve the spot yet, tackled great but l think Barrett probably should get it.
Bell surprised me, did pretty well certainly wasn't the worst.
We seriously need to do work on our goalscoring ability. 4 goals and 18 behinds for the match is shit even if it is a wet day.

 

[FFB1]

Another pre season game where I have no idea how we’re really going due to awful conditions. It’s about time they stopped playing JLT games up there at this time of the year, especially if we only get 2. Sure it’s only a couple weeks out til Rd 1 but it’s beyond a joke - can’t remember the last time we didn’t have at least 1 game to get ready for the season proper in awful conditions. #rant

 

[briztoon]

We still need quite a few players/positions/roles to fill out our team. I'd love to know what quality kids/positions we have coming through our academy beyond this year.

I'm sorely tempted to jump off the Rankine bandwagon, simply because Jack Lukosius is looking an absolute gun KPF and we need one.

 

[PertRoosOsborne]

Terrible conditions enabled GC to get their nose in front and then put all their players behind the ball....Sydney Swans Coaching 101.

I thought our endeavour was fantastic....very hard to convert the opportunities on a day like today.

 

[Dalions]

As far as the whole pre-season goes. I dont think we can really take too much from any of it.
AFLX - pffft!
Game 1 against Sydney - I think the emphasis was contested possession, so therefore they did ok but kind of forgot about the redt of the game.
And today with the conditions, it really wasn't a day to test the structures and a clean fast style of offence that they are wanting to play.
So its hard to know what to think until after the Sts.

 

[Rocketman1984]

You didn’t say forward targets. You said a functioning forward line. A forward line (and that term really is archaic anyway) is far more than its ability to be a marking target.

The point remains that our ability to hit the scoreboard, particularly in the second half of the year, was very good, despite the fact that we couldn’t win the football. That simply doesn’t happen if your forward line is dysfunctional. A forward line needs to be judged both as an entirety and in the context of the style of game the coaching staff want the club to play. In the last 10 games, on both fronts, our forward structures were far from our biggest problem, and, in most observers’ eyes, our greatest strength.

You don’t need to agree with me. But I still think you are wrong. And your dismissive tone when the above was pointed out (albeit less fulsomely than I just have) indicates that either you aren’t willing to consider alternative points of view or you lack football knowledge.

I don’t really care if you were wounded by my comments. I’ll happily go back to not posting on this site if you feel so aggrieved.

Agree with the above but why is it so hard for them to not hold the ball just forward of centre, wait for someone (who can get seperation on their opponent) to run into space and kick it to the leading target. The small forwards then crumb

It's a simple process that seems to have worked for a hundred years.