Review Round 11, 2023 - Adelaide vs. Brisbane Lions

[p4p1]

According to austadiums the G is 173m long.

That is including the boundary area. The playing area is 160x141.

 

[Grasshopper17]

Perhaps. But then the Gabba would also be shorter by that boundary area.

 

[Mr Ripper]

 

[Grasshopper17]

View attachment 1702864

Source? And what do the different colours mean?

 

[Mr Ripper]

Source? And what do the different colours mean?

The footy club and nfi

 

[Grasshopper17]

The footy club and nfi

Probably going to back austadiums over some random doc from lions.com.au. The amount of factual errors in their stats articles each week is mind boggling. And embarrassing.

 

[p4p1]

Size and Capacity

The total capacity of the MCG is about 100,018. There is around 95,000 seats and about 5,000 spots for patrons to stand. Modern patrons have a demand for comfortable seats and a clear view, these...

mcgthehistory.weebly.com

All Grounds Dimensions - Some surprises

I compiled the list below of all grounds dimensions. I didn't know a lot of them and was quite surprised by some of them. For instance the MCG is virtually the 3rd shortest ground in the comp but the widest. The Gabba is virtually the same dimensions as the SCG. Domain, Blundstone and TIO are vir...

demonland.com

 

[p4p1]

AFL Ground Sizes

www.footyalmanac.com.au

Boundary sizes to be reduced at GMHBA Stadium - Turfmate

The AFL’s skinniest ground will get even tighter as the League moves to reduce boundary sizes at GMHBA Stadium. Ahead of Geelong’s final four matches at the venue this year, the wings will each be brought in by half a metre, the ground’s width narrowing to 116m. It will ensure a 5.5 metre gap...

turfmate.com.au

 

[p4p1]

The Home of AFL Women's

The home of the NAB AFL Women's.

www.womens.afl

 

[Grasshopper17]

Size and Capacity

The total capacity of the MCG is about 100,018. There is around 95,000 seats and about 5,000 spots for patrons to stand. Modern patrons have a demand for comfortable seats and a clear view, these...

mcgthehistory.weebly.com

All Grounds Dimensions - Some surprises

I compiled the list below of all grounds dimensions. I didn't know a lot of them and was quite surprised by some of them. For instance the MCG is virtually the 3rd shortest ground in the comp but the widest. The Gabba is virtually the same dimensions as the SCG. Domain, Blundstone and TIO are vir...

demonland.com

Interesting. Thankyou. Tell you what. There's a game at the MCG tonight, and a game at Adelaide Oval tomorrow. We can easily compare the length of the ground by looking at the gap between the 50m arc and the centre square. Cos those are all standardised.

Then maybe I will admit I'm wrong

So here's the gap at the MCG:


The gap at the Adelaide Oval should be about 3m larger, which should be noticeable, given that the MCG, if it really is only 161m, these gaps should only be 5.5m.

 

[Mr Ripper]

Probably going to back austadiums over some random doc from lions.com.au. The amount of factual errors in their stats articles each week is mind boggling. And embarrassing.

Google Earth agrees with the footy club.

 

[p4p1]

Australian Football - M.C.G. Ground - Detail

australianfootball.com

this was the website I was trying to find. It’s probably the best source on the web for any playing dimensions. Ausstadiums seems to have a mix of ground sizes and arena size but all labelled as arena size. The Australian football website is pretty good if you want to nerd out on some stats.

 

[Grasshopper17]

Google Earth agrees with the footy club.

View attachment 1702886View attachment 1702888

Genuinely did not know Google Earth could do that!

Can you do Adelaide Oval?

 

[p4p1]

I think you were onto something with the grid size though Grasshopper17 it is a bit longer but it’s also more narrower. It would definitely be easier to choke up our forward 50 with narrower pockets. Docklands is 160m long but a meter narrower than Adelaide, the venues we have lost at this year both had narrower grounds.

 

[Mr Ripper]

Genuinely did not know Google Earth could do that!

Can you do Adelaide Oval?

Had a job finding an image without the grandstand roof overhang getting in the way.

 

[Grasshopper17]

Had a job finding an image without the grandstand roof overhang getting in the way.

View attachment 1702912

Outstanding!

Righto. I'll get a similar screen grab from Adelaide Oval tomorrow and we'll confirm.

 

[Elixuh]

Had a job finding an image without the grandstand roof overhang getting in the way.

View attachment 1702912

Kudos for giving us measurements in centimeters

 

[Mr Ripper]

Kudos for giving us measurements in centimeters

Do the math lazy bones.

 

[harvester]

TL;DR

1. We wouldn't have missed as many shots at the Gabba
2. Our forward entries need work UNLESS
3. Fort/Fullarton comes in for Gunston
4. Sub Fort out in the third quarter and move Rayner to full forward

Apologies for derailing the thread somewhat above... I actually did have some thoughts about Sunday's game! However having attended with some mates who live in Adelaide, my levels of intoxication only rose throughout the game, which to be fair did make the final result considerably more palatable.

So my comments are pretty general... Yes we missed a lot of shots in the 3rd quarter but I'm not sure too many of them were the absolute certainties guys like Berry and Rayner missed last week. Yes Ashcroft missed from directly in front but other than that most of our set shots seemed to be from 30+ out or on tricky angles. I think this is borne out by this chart of our shots at goal:

View attachment 1702153

The numbers are the "expected score" from each position, and the ones ending in "S" are our set shots. Almost all of them were either a fair distance out or on tricky angles. Then we had a lot of hurried snaps which another day sees a few more of those go through.

But so far we're pretty much putting this down to the weather and "one of those days". Here's something left field I think is worth mentioning:

The dimensions of the ground

The Gabba is 156m long. Adelaide Oval is 167m long. This means that if you are transitioning from a kick in, and you end up with a shot at goal, you are likely to be 10m further out than if you were at the Gabba. If you did everything the same at both grounds.

Similarly, if you win a centre clearance and end up with a shot at goal, you're likely to be 5m further out.

Here's a look at our accuracy on Sunday:

View attachment 1702163

We hit the post THREE times. Chances are, if we have those same shots only a metre or two closer to goal, they go through the middle. That's 13-15 (93) instead of 10-18. Similarly, 5 rushed behinds. At the Gabba, those are most likely scoring untouched, and if one of them is a goal, there's your win.

Also, those extra goals in the first 3 quarters most likely mean we aren't gifting Adelaide goals in the last quarter as a result of taking excessive risks coming out of defence.

There's a big BUT in this analysis however... The MCG is 173m long. So we're going to have to go to town on this one way or the other. The knee jerk reaction is to say we need to practice our goal kicking, but I want to address something a number of us have already mentioned here, and which I touched on after the Essendon game (here)...

Ball movement and forward entries

Yes, 28 scores and 66 inside 50s should be enough to get the job done 9 times out of 10, but check this out:

View attachment 1702181

41% is pretty poor, and so is the 55% defensively. But there's reasons for that. When you're as relentless as we were in the third quarter, with the ball ping ponging from half forward to our goal square for basically 20 minutes, there isn't going to be much choice but to bomb it long and high on people's heads, simply because there's no spaces to lead into. (Altho I'd still like to see blokes leading, simply to create chaos and doubt for defenders)

Then there's the other side of the same coin, where if the other mob are successful in "running the gauntlet", they get out the back and they have acres of space in their forward line. Hence that 55%.

So as counterintuitive as it seems, our accuracy issues actually affected our defensive efficiency!

All this begs the question about...

Jack Gunston

We've recruited this guy to fix our forward 50 entries, to get our forward unit working more cohesively, and to bag a couple of goals a week. This all sounds very nice, but let's forget about his personal performance for a moment... We're 11 games in, and the rest of the team has still not got the memo!

9 times out of 10 we still kick long to contests inside 50. But guess what else? That method of play is far more sustainable in finals than relying on "hitting a lead".

All this is a tactful way of saying, Gunston out, Fort in. Or Fullarton, I don't mind... I'd actually like to think Fullarton is up to it given his potential longevity at the club. But Fort has shown more at the level so he gets first crack.

Then we look at how the game is going... Usually we'll want some fresh legs so we sub Fort out of the game after two and a half quarters, and Rayner takes his spot as a contested marking full forward (who is also good on the lead). Dunkley could also play the role but that detracts from his ability to play big midfield minutes.

We make Ah Chee or Dev or Kai the sub and they come in for what it's basically Rayner's "ground ball game".

Or maybe we are happy with our height so we sub out a smaller bloke for our sub. Or maybe big O needs a spell so we sub him out and put Fort in the ruck. Keen to see Joe maintain his rucking time anyway.

Fork in the road time

So that's the conundrum... Either we keep going down this path of trying to get our ball movement right, hoping that we'll eventually click with Gunston, with no guarantee it's ever going to work (Gunston has never been the focal point in a successful September team remember).

OR we say, you know what, stuff it, we actually ARE a territory team, we're gonna just bang it long to big Forty, get Charlie and Linc at his feet, and form a wall behind them and keep pounding at that door till it busts open. It ain't rocket science, at times it might not be pretty, but history has shown it gets results when it matters.

You should get a gig at the lions grasshopper . Great insight, thankyou for sharing it with us simpler folk

 

[Harris Specter]

Hello Brisbane supporters. RE: Hipwood mark not paid. Berry kicked the ball to Hipwood from a free kick that he should not have received. Berry staged contact that wasn't there and the umpire fell for it. So while in isolation the the mark not being paid was the incorrect call, within context it was the fair outcome. The Berry staging was obvious at the ground and in the replay that showed at the ground that was not shown in the broadcast. In the broadcast you can actually hear the crowd boo seemingly for no reason, it was at the replay.

Thilthorpe and Fogarty also didn't mark it, but at least Fog kicked a behind.

Hello Adelaide supporter, you guys are terrible away from Adelaide Oval. Should not have received some soft frees there tonight. Just letting you know.

 

[Grasshopper17]

Interesting. Thankyou. Tell you what. There's a game at the MCG tonight, and a game at Adelaide Oval tomorrow. We can easily compare the length of the ground by looking at the gap between the 50m arc and the centre square. Cos those are all standardised.

Then maybe I will admit I'm wrong

So here's the gap at the MCG:
View attachment 1702882

The gap at the Adelaide Oval should be about 3m larger, which should be noticeable, given that the MCG, if it really is only 161m, these gaps should only be 5.5m.

To wrap this up, Adelaide Oval on Saturday:



To me this is a noticeably bigger gap. So I concede!

It's actually a good thing, because it means our plans for the MCG don't need to differ as much compared to our plans at the Gabba.

 

[3KZ is Football]

I watched Fagan’s presser and I think he was under the impression that we won. He was very proud of our statistical returns. Apparently our numbers would win most games, just not this one it seems. We may need a new coach if we are going to go to the next level. Finishing Top 4 is great, but to give ourselves the best possible shot at a flag, we need to finish Top 2. The big question - is Fagan up to it? Is he ruthless enough?

“Wait till you see his team selection for the Hawthorn game. He will pick Rich and Gunston again…they will be useless and we will lose”

 

[paulige]

Great post.

I had a similar train of thought but across the league in 2023.

Fact of the matter is, Top 8 teams are tough to beat interstate.

14 times this year a Top 8 team from another state has travelled into enemy territory and attempted to knock off another Top 8 team (as per the current ladder).

Of those 14, only 2 times the away side has triumphed:

Rd 7 Port Adelaide dft. St Kilda @ Marvel (7pts)
Rd 7 Collingwood dft. Adelaide @ AO (1pt)

By the barest margins really. Meanwhile in the 12 losses, many of the margins have been blow outs.

No Top 8 team has a perfect away record against fellow Top 8 teams, with the two best records only going at 50%.

Collingwood 1/2 50% (dft by BL)
Port Adelaide 1/2 50% (dft by COL)
Adelaide 0/1 0% (dft by WBD)
St Kilda 0/1 0% (dft by ADE)
Western Bulldogs 0/1 0% (dft by PA)
Essendon 0/2 0% (dft by BL, PA)
Melbourne 0/2 0% (dft by BL, PA)
Brisbane 0/3 0% (dft by PA, WBD, ADE)

So there you have it. Not the be all end all, but does highlight we have had a tough fixture to date (and have more challenging assignments still to come in StK, Melb, Coll and Freo assuming they push into the 8).

History says we probably win one; but here's hoping we can buck history and jag a few!

Any chance of an updated ladder?

 

[whizkizz]

Any chance of an updated ladder?

Sure, why not.

From the last time I did this, Adelaide has now dropped out of the top 8 and been replaced by Geelong.

I will consider playing down at Geelong the same as playing interstate, given it's a similar rarity that teams actually head down there.

After 18 rounds there have been 17 matches involving two top 8 teams (where one team has genuinely traveled).

Only 4 times (from 17) has the visitor been successful. They were:

Rd 7 Port Adelaide dft. St Kilda @ Marvel (7pts)
Rd 13 Port Adelaide dft. Western Bulldogs @ Marvel (22pts)
Rd 15 Brisbane dft. St Kilda @ Marvel (28pts)
Rd 16 Port Adelaide dft. Essendon @ MCG (4pts).

Now note that the loser in each of these four matches is from the current 6th-8th range on the ladder, which tells us two things - those sides are probably weaker and more vulnerable; and again, enforces the point that it is very, very rare to beat a top 4 side as an away team.

Updated ladder playing a top 8 team away:

Port Adelaide 3/4 75% (dft by COL)
Brisbane 1/4 25% (dft by PA, WBD, MEL)
Collingwood 0/1 0% (dft by BL)
Geelong 0/1 0% (dft by PA)
Western Bulldogs 0/1 0% (dft by PA)
Essendon 0/3 0% (dft by BL, PA, GEE)
Melbourne 0/3 0% (dft by BL, PA, GEE)

*Note St Kilda yet to play a top 8 side interstate.

Special mentions to Fremantle & GWS who were excluded from the above however both managed to defeat a top 8 side in Rd 11 as the away team (defeating Melbourne & Geelong respectively).

History suggests Port Adelaide will beat Collingwood this week; Brisbane will defeat Geelong this week; and we will succumb to the Pies in Rd 23. Let's see how it holds...

 

[dlanod]

History suggests Port Adelaide will beat Collingwood this week; Brisbane will defeat Geelong this week; and we will succumb to the Pies in Rd 23. Let's see how it holds...

Doesn't Marvel count as an interstate game for both us and the Pies?

After making that joke, I realised that GWS over Melbourne was actually at an interstate game for both clubs (Alice Springs), so it's a bit of an asterisk too.