Review Round 10, 2025 - Brisbane Lions vs. Narrm

[Coastal Lion]

Agree Danger is a rare commodity.
Has explosive speed in a very short distance , two or three meters . then high end speed.
Cam has explosive power , can bust through a pack , but that speed is not there and it is Dangers advantage over other players.
Combine that with a big solid body and he is going to break tackles and break into space.
Just don't see Cam in that light.
He has other gifts though, ability to climb a pack or almost like slides up the pack and marks.
Definetly has power but not genuine speed.
Maybe Cam needs to build on skills, who knows, or maybe just smarts , probably that's it.
And I think that is using your gifts .

Surfing lessons with " the coastal lion" in the off season for Cam would develop Dangerfeild like physical attributes ill pass the hat around at the BnF count so we can get him a nice board.
Top end speed i cant teach sorry

 

[braddsey]

Thinking to last year, with a lot of posters saying how far back we came from.

Pre bye last year we were genuinely (mostly) playing quite well, with our goalkicking terrible

This year seems opposite

And the big worry for me is last year we had the benefit of an easy draw post bye - we had 11 games and only 4 finalists

We have 13 games left and 8 of them are in the top 8

Clearly we are a gun side at our best, and even without Daniher i think that’s the case

But i don’t think it’s crazy to say we are no guarantee at finals right now

This week feels massive, especially with a 5 day break after

After round-10 last year (the same point we are now) based on the ladder at that point, we had to play 7 clubs that were in the top-8 at that point: Sydney, Essendon, Port Adelaide, Collingwood, GWS, Melbourne, Gold Coast.

Of the remaining 6 games, we had 2 against clubs who ultimately played finals. So 4 "easier" games against West Coast, Adelaide (which wasn't easy!) and 2 x St Kilda. Perhaps the second half of our fixture last season looks easier in hindsight because we know went on our winning streak, while some of the clubs with early form fell away.

We won't know until season end how many of the teams in our remaining 13 games this season end up playing finals, but other than Collingwood, no team is really playing consistent football. On paper we look to have a harder fixture compared to last year

To make finals, we probably need 13 wins. That's 6 more. We've not really smashed anyone (which is why we have 110%), but we only had 1 heavy beating (against Collingwood), a draw, and a close loss. There's never a guarantee on finals until we make it to 14 wins, but we should be reasonably confident.

I don't subscribe to this week being massive. Our 5-day break is back to a home game against Essendon who are struggling... playing with some heart considering their injury issues, but still should not be a major threat. Lose against Hawthorn and Essendon - then I'll start to be seriously concerned about our form.

 

[Viceregal]

So much could and has been said about this game ... I am going to take inspiration from that three word description article that pops up and go with ... 'well that sucked'

I am hoping next week will be something along the lines of

• Ultra dominant performance
• Premiers are back or
• Lions devour Hawks

but I am really kind of expecting

• that was better or
• Played with intent or even
• they really tried or maybe
• lions turned corner

 

[Grasshopper17]

It quite possible that Gawn is the best big-man in the league, having a bit of a purple patch of the last few weeks. He knows how to position himself well and takes that mark time and time again against all opponents when players get tired. It's probably the same frustration oppo supporters feel when Harris is on and takes 8-10 intercept marks.

On the TV it's not possible to see why we don't go to the other wing, but I assume it's because it leaves the field open for rebound, so we do the safe thing and head to the line. The only other alternative we see is a short kick in the 50, which makes everyone nervous as hell.

I'm glad at least someone appreciates this. Being live at the ground Melbourne did a great job of covering all our attempts to shift the ball off the line, as Hird and Bartel highlighted here:



In these situations it's very easy to be hyper-critical of the player in possession. "Don't kick it to Max Gawn!" In reality tho it's more the rest of the team not generating the movement necessary to create options and pull apart the opposition's defensive setup. The guy who has the ball knows kicking to Max Gawn is a terrible option. But late in that game it was the best one we had.

This sort of analysis is exactly why I prefer to watch games from behind the goals, and why I think broadcasters can and should do more to show games from that perspective.

 

[Nuggo]

I'm glad at least someone appreciates this. Being live at the ground Melbourne did a great job of covering all our attempts to shift the ball off the line, as Hird and Bartel highlighted here:



In these situations it's very easy to be hyper-critical of the player in possession. "Don't kick it to Max Gawn!" In reality tho it's more the rest of the team not generating the movement necessary to create options and pull apart the opposition's defensive setup. The guy who has the ball knows kicking to Max Gawn is a terrible option. But late in that game it was the best one we had.

This sort of analysis is exactly why I prefer to watch games from behind the goals, and why I think broadcasters can and should do more to show games from that perspective.

Being as high up in stand provides another perspective as well. Shows work rates and full shapes.

 

[Sunny Land]

I'm glad at least someone appreciates this. Being live at the ground Melbourne did a great job of covering all our attempts to shift the ball off the line, as Hird and Bartel highlighted here:



In these situations it's very easy to be hyper-critical of the player in possession. "Don't kick it to Max Gawn!" In reality tho it's more the rest of the team not generating the movement necessary to create options and pull apart the opposition's defensive setup. The guy who has the ball knows kicking to Max Gawn is a terrible option. But late in that game it was the best one we had.

This sort of analysis is exactly why I prefer to watch games from behind the goals, and why I think broadcasters can and should do more to show games from that perspective.

Really!!! Kicking it to big Maxy when you know he will mark it is the best option we had? I call BS on that. When we play Melbourne we need the ball as far away from Gawn as possible. He destroys us better than any other player in the competition in my opinion.

 

[Nunez]

Really!!! Kicking it to big Maxy when you know he will mark it is the best option we had? I call BS on that. When we play Melbourne we need the ball as far away from Gawn as possible. He destroys us better than any other player in the competition in my opinion.

Agreed. I was behind the goals that game too and at some point we had to realise it was a higher risk of kicking to Max area even if congested as opposed to a 1v1 on the opposite side of the ring. Fair enough the first time in the fourth, but it happened what? Four times?

 

[Grasshopper17]

Really!!! Kicking it to big Maxy when you know he will mark it is the best option we had? I call BS on that. When we play Melbourne we need the ball as far away from Gawn as possible. He destroys us better than any other player in the competition in my opinion.

Agreed. I was behind the goals that game too and at some point we had to realise it was a higher risk of kicking to Max area even if congested as opposed to a 1v1 on the opposite side of the ring. Fair enough the first time in the fourth, but it happened what? Four times?

Righto. You two experts go watch the footage Hird and Bartel showed and pick out a better option. I wish you well.

 

[Nunez]

Righto. You two experts go watch the footage Hird and Bartel showed and pick out a better option. I wish you well.

It's okay to not agree my friend. I did watch the video. I still believe it was better we take the risk with a switch. Players need to run hard to make it happen. We were 10 down with 3 minutes to go. We played conservative football as opposed to taking risks to try and win.

 

[Grasshopper17]

It's okay to not agree my friend. I did watch the video. I still believe it was better we take the risk with a switch. Players need to run hard to make it happen. We were 10 down with 3 minutes to go. We played conservative football as opposed to taking risks to try and win.

The way I read this, we're actually in violent agreement. Perhaps our perspectives differ somewhat on whose role it is to initiate the switch, or whatever other more aggressive option is warranted in that situation.

My firm belief is that it's the role of the rest of the team to initiate movement, trying and introduce some chaos and confusion into the opposition zone. From there, we so often see gaps open up, and a better option becomes apparent.

If however your perspective is that it's the job of the ball carrier to generate those better options, that's where our disagreement lies and I think that viewpoint is a bit misguided.

Perhaps the one thing the ball carrier could have done in that situation is take off hard sideways. Try to draw the guy not manning the mark, loop a handball over the top and then you're out the other side. It's an incredibly risky move tho; if the handball gets blocked or you get tackled, you're in a 1 on 2 situation and you're on the other team's goal line. Good luck!

 

[Nunez]

The way I read this, we're actually in violent agreement. Perhaps our perspectives differ somewhat on whose role it is to initiate the switch, or whatever other more aggressive option is warranted in that situation.

My firm belief is that it's the role of the rest of the team to initiate movement, trying and introduce some chaos and confusion into the opposition zone. From there, we so often see gaps open up, and a better option becomes apparent.

If however your perspective is that it's the job of the ball carrier to generate those better options, that's where our disagreement lies and I think that viewpoint is a bit misguided.

Perhaps the one thing the ball carrier could have done in that situation is take off hard sideways. Try to draw the guy not manning the mark, loop a handball over the top and then you're out the other side. It's an incredibly risky move tho; if the handball gets blocked or you get tackled, you're in a 1 on 2 situation and you're on the other team's goal line. Good luck!

100%. The responsibility of having bravery to execute is the kickers responsibility but it's a two way street: players need to run and help give him calculated risks to take. That wasn't really all that present.

Easy for us to talk about this in hindsight and tbh I am sure the coaches would have as well.

 

[M Malice]

Perhaps the one thing the ball carrier could have done in that situation is take off hard sideways. Try to draw the guy not manning the mark, loop a handball over the top and then you're out the other side. It's an incredibly risky move tho; if the handball gets blocked or you get tackled, you're in a 1 on 2 situation and you're on the other team's goal line. Good luck!

Down by 10 with 3 minutes to go it is time to get risky IMO, mise well lose by 16/22 trying something radical to win than going the so called safe method of going long in the vicinity of the best intercept marking ruckman of this century.

 

[briztoon]

Really!!! Kicking it to big Maxy when you know he will mark it is the best option we had? I call BS on that. When we play Melbourne we need the ball as far away from Gawn as possible. He destroys us better than any other player in the competition in my opinion.

It's okay to not agree my friend. I did watch the video. I still believe it was better we take the risk with a switch. Players need to run hard to make it happen. We were 10 down with 3 minutes to go. We played conservative football as opposed to taking risks to try and win.

That's what Grasshopper17 said we weren't doing in his initial post, so the Lions player in possession had no choice but to kick it down the line to where Gawn was, as there were no other options or openings being created by his teammates.

Both your initial replies to Grasshopper17 totally ignored that he had made that point to start with.

I'm glad at least someone appreciates this. Being live at the ground Melbourne did a great job of covering all our attempts to shift the ball off the line, as Hird and Bartel highlighted here:


In these situations it's very easy to be hyper-critical of the player in possession. "Don't kick it to Max Gawn!" In reality tho it's more the rest of the team not generating the movement necessary to create options and pull apart the opposition's defensive setup. The guy who has the ball knows kicking to Max Gawn is a terrible option. But late in that game it was the best one we had.

This sort of analysis is exactly why I prefer to watch games from behind the goals, and why I think broadcasters can and should do more to show games from that perspective.

 

[Nathan Barley]

Really!!! Kicking it to big Maxy when you know he will mark it is the best option we had? I call BS on that. When we play Melbourne we need the ball as far away from Gawn as possible. He destroys us better than any other player in the competition in my opinion.

This is extremely simplistic. He sets up where the safest position for us to kick to. It's not like he's setting up 30m out straight in front. And we're not moving their zone around either. It's more a poor reflection of the players up the field

 

[Nunez]

That's what Grasshopper17 said we weren't doing in his initial post, so the Lions player in possession had no choice but to kick it down the line to where Gawn was, as there were no other options or openings being created by his teammates.

Both your initial replies to Grasshopper17 totally ignored that he had made that point to start with.

thanks for stating something GH already clarified and we agreed we agreed on Briz

 

[MSB ROYS]

This is extremely simplistic. He sets up where the safest position for us to kick to. It's not like he's setting up 30m out straight in front. And we're not moving their zone around either. It's more a poor reflection of the players up the field

I also remember Max sprinting across the ground to reach those contests. It wasn't like Max was standing there for 10 seconds and they kicked it to him.

 

[Section 5]

Kicking down the line is what players do when options dry up.
Sometimes from the grandstand you pick up a late alternative, but the player has only two eyes and time is running out.
Then the 50 meter kick down the line or as far as he is capable of kicking.
I often feel rather than gaining as mush territory a 30/35-meter kick to a one-on-one contest near the boundary is a better option.
Reason being we know a Gawn, Witts etc are waiting for that long kick.

 

[Grasshopper17]

Kicking down the line is what players do when options dry up.
Sometimes from the grandstand you pick up a late alternative, but the player has only two eyes and time is running out.
Then the 50 meter kick down the line or as far as he is capable of kicking.
I often feel rather than gaining as mush territory a 30/35-meter kick to a one-on-one contest near the boundary is a better option.
Reason being we know a Gawn, Witts etc are waiting for that long kick.

We're seeing the odd player do this now and then. "Ah, gun intercept marking player X is set up 50-55 metres away. I'll just drop it into the space in front of him so he can't get to it. Hopefully we mark it but worst case scenario it goes out of bounds."

The problem with that course of action is that at that stage of the game we urgently needed goals. So maximum territory at that point was really the only option if we couldn't shift laterally.

Also your point about being in the grandstand is a good one too. We have the added (considerable) advantage of elevation, so where the ball carrier most likely sees a jumble of players from both sides ahead of them, we have a much better idea of their distance relative to each other.

This is where training is so crucial, both being able to train these situations so that players become predictable to each other, but also the execution of the skills necessary to find what at ground level must often seem like miniscule gaps in the defence.