St Kilda v Brisbane
10 Harris Andrews (BL)8 Eric Hipwood (BL)
6 Lachie Neale (BL)
3 Jack Sinclair (STK)
3 Oscar McInerney (BL)
Review Round 15, 2023 - St. Kilda vs. Brisbane Lions
- Thread starter ZoBlitz
- Start date
- Tagged users None
8 Eric Hipwood (BL)
6 Lachie Neale (BL)
3 Jack Sinclair (STK)
3 Oscar McInerney (BL)
Viceregal
Premium Platinum
I was wondering if someone was going to mention that ...
- Mar 12, 2003
- 3,503
- 5,969
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Brisbane
I reckon Gunston probably deserves a fair bit of credit for this. From what I hear he's basically already in the role as our "space in the forward line" coach.
Also I think Murray Davis also deserves a lot of credit for having him focus more on the defensive side of the game, and be okay with not needing to be a flashy hero all the time.
10 goals in 3 weeks, 8 of them in Melbourne, 4 of them at the MCG. Famous last words but I never thought I'd be using the word "consistency" in association with Eric Hipwood. Great to see.
On the quiet
Club Legend
- Jul 15, 2021
- 1,125
- 1,343
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
I know Fort has been sub previously, noticed Fages said in presser that they were not sure if Payne would be right, so perhaps a tall sub was insurance.
Fletcher is going much better than I thought at this stage and hope he keeps getting some games, as with young blokes his form may drop and then perhaps he is rested
We can have two tall forwards as Cam with his leap is virtually a third tall.
- Sep 9, 2014
- 910
- 1,117
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
So he should , just watched the replay, crouch and steele tag team neale for most of 3rd qtr for starters, sinclair played on ashcroft and occasionally dunkley.
Great game by neale.
- Mar 12, 2003
- 3,503
- 5,969
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Brisbane
And their biggest loss in Melbourne.
- Mar 12, 2003
- 3,503
- 5,969
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Brisbane
Seems as though the broad sentiment is that we prefer the 2 tall setup rather than 3. To me, it looked more or less how I thought it might. For two and a half quarters we conceded many more intercept marks in our front half than we had in recent weeks, but we countered that by covering the field much better in defence. This forced St Kilda long down the line and Harris Andrews had a night out.
Then we subbed Kai out for Forty, suddenly we looked slow and struggling to cover that ground, and St Kilda started to get through and around us. Was this caused by fatigue or the change to our structure? I'm suggesting a bit of both. On the flip side, I don't recall too many (or any) intercept marks against us in our front half after Fort came on. But our forward line did seem to become more open, which is a bit of a double edged sword, and more often than not it seemed to allow St Kilda more time and space to run the ball out.
I've always been an advocate for the 3 tall setup, and while I'm willing to be proven wrong, I'm not yet ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Fort's had a couple of games now... I'd like to see Tom Fullarton given a crack in his place. He'll be able to cover the ground much better, and on the basis that Fort has taken 1 mark both games combined, I don't think we'll lose that much aerially. I'd like to see him start against Richmond, and then play him as the sub against West Coast. Similar to how we played Fort these last 2 games.
One thing that hasn't been discussed here is the number of times our guys got caught holding the ball. It seemed we fell into the trap of trying to find the perfect option instead of doing what we were all taught as youngsters: give the first option. On Friday night tho I thought we made a number of relatively straightforward scoring opportunities look almost impossible due to this.
I must admit I hadn't really noticed this as an issue in previous games... Indeed, a few of us (not me so much) have often complained about our hurried kicks forward to nobody in particular, which I guess is right at the other end of the decision-making spectrum.
This makes me wonder if the two issues were related: we realised we had a shorter forward line, which meant we weren't able to dump kick the ball forward so freely.
So I guess I haven't been overly convinced by our ability to generate strong scoring opportunities in recent games either with the 3 tall or 2 tall setup, and there probably hasn't been a great deal of difference either way in terms of scoreboard impact.
Essentially, the way Friday's game panned out, I see the 2 tall setup as a relatively conservative option. We concede that we will turn the ball over more often via intercept marks, but we're gonna counter that by being better in defending their resulting ball movement.
On the other hand, the 3 tall setup is more aggressive: we're backing our big men to create a better contest, and then we're backing the smalls we have to apply enough pressure to lock the ball in our forward line. On the flip side, we concede that if the opposition are able to get through that first line of defence, we'll find it harder to defend their ball movement given we have fewer mobile players. Risk vs reward.
That's why I'd like to see Fullarton come in for Fort; this might help determine whether it's personnel or structure which is persuading many of us that the 2 tall setup is the way to go.
Then we subbed Kai out for Forty, suddenly we looked slow and struggling to cover that ground, and St Kilda started to get through and around us. Was this caused by fatigue or the change to our structure? I'm suggesting a bit of both. On the flip side, I don't recall too many (or any) intercept marks against us in our front half after Fort came on. But our forward line did seem to become more open, which is a bit of a double edged sword, and more often than not it seemed to allow St Kilda more time and space to run the ball out.
I've always been an advocate for the 3 tall setup, and while I'm willing to be proven wrong, I'm not yet ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Fort's had a couple of games now... I'd like to see Tom Fullarton given a crack in his place. He'll be able to cover the ground much better, and on the basis that Fort has taken 1 mark both games combined, I don't think we'll lose that much aerially. I'd like to see him start against Richmond, and then play him as the sub against West Coast. Similar to how we played Fort these last 2 games.
One thing that hasn't been discussed here is the number of times our guys got caught holding the ball. It seemed we fell into the trap of trying to find the perfect option instead of doing what we were all taught as youngsters: give the first option. On Friday night tho I thought we made a number of relatively straightforward scoring opportunities look almost impossible due to this.
I must admit I hadn't really noticed this as an issue in previous games... Indeed, a few of us (not me so much) have often complained about our hurried kicks forward to nobody in particular, which I guess is right at the other end of the decision-making spectrum.
This makes me wonder if the two issues were related: we realised we had a shorter forward line, which meant we weren't able to dump kick the ball forward so freely.
So I guess I haven't been overly convinced by our ability to generate strong scoring opportunities in recent games either with the 3 tall or 2 tall setup, and there probably hasn't been a great deal of difference either way in terms of scoreboard impact.
Essentially, the way Friday's game panned out, I see the 2 tall setup as a relatively conservative option. We concede that we will turn the ball over more often via intercept marks, but we're gonna counter that by being better in defending their resulting ball movement.
On the other hand, the 3 tall setup is more aggressive: we're backing our big men to create a better contest, and then we're backing the smalls we have to apply enough pressure to lock the ball in our forward line. On the flip side, we concede that if the opposition are able to get through that first line of defence, we'll find it harder to defend their ball movement given we have fewer mobile players. Risk vs reward.
That's why I'd like to see Fullarton come in for Fort; this might help determine whether it's personnel or structure which is persuading many of us that the 2 tall setup is the way to go.
