Review Round 20, 2023 - Gold Coast vs. Brisbane Lions

[Grasshopper17]

Some great points here. However with respect to Andrews,he is one of our captains who has played 150 games plus ,so surely he could see what was happening with King and made some adjustments on field. Simply playing off him and leaving it up to other defenders was just totally incomprehensible. King was just gifted goals by Andrews lack of leadership. No one seems to want to take any responsibility when we are under pressure and it is a major weakness imo.

What's everyone's thoughts on what we should have done here? I've been wrestling with this for a few days and I think it's trickier than it seems. David King nailed it on AFL 360 last night - essentially it's a battle of wills.

We (as in the club) wanted Payne to play on King and Andrews to play on Casboult. These looked like being good matchups for us given the success Payne had on Max against St Kilda and the troubles both Kings have given Andrews in the past.

The key difference between St Kilda and Gold Coast was that St Kilda didn't really have anyone else. Membrey was out, so King really had to play as their number one tall forward, closer to goal, suiting our plans for both Payne and Andrews.

But Casboult is a much more suitable close-to-goal player, given King's pace.

So King decides to go and play on Andrews. But Andrews is already on Casboult. So now Andrews is marking two players. This is a tricky position for a defender because even if you win the contest, all you have is the ball or a stoppage. But if you lose the contest, which is more likely, it's almost a certain goal.

Do we send Payne further up field to try and be the intercept marking player? This is something we probably need to add to his skillset, but that might take another preseason or two.

This might not solve the Andrews problem, unless Payne starts picking them off with ridiculous regularity and demands someone goes to man him up (this is the exact reason King went to Andrews in the first place).

But this is a high risk policy. It relies on pressure on their midfield, which we didn't have. Otherwise they simply bypass Payne and we still have the 2 on 1 problem. So we relent. Andrews says "fine, I'll play on King, but still try to zone off". Only it turned out to be anything but fine.

So do we simply say "ok, we'll do away with playing our zoning intercept defender, and simply play one on one in defence"? This is what Gold Coast want, and it relies on our midfield to drop back and fill up the leading lanes, or to exert more pressure around the ball. And on Saturday we had neither, for reasons already discussed.

I'm interested to know what others would do in this situation. 3KZ is Football, you're a coach. What would you do in this situation?

Bear in mind we need to be ready to expect the same thing again on Sunday. Maybe Amiss goes to Andrews. Maybe Fogarty goes to him when we play Adelaide. Mihochek. The other King. Some big challenges ahead potentially.

 

[Grasshopper17]

It's attitude not fitness. Seem to be perfectly fine/full of run when things are going our way.

When things are going our way, you say?

Oh, so you mean like the time we led the Giants by 41 points only to concede 6 of the last 8 goals?

Or maybe you mean like the time we led Carlton by 40 points at 3 quarter time, having conceded just one goal in two quarters, yet Carlton were still a slugger's chance of winning with 5 minutes to go?

Perhaps you mean like the time we had Melbourne absolutely shot to ribbons, having kicked 13 of the last 18 goals to the midway point of the third quarter.

Nah, you must mean like the time we led Geelong by 37 points, just the other day, having conceded just one goal to time on of the third quarter.

You're quite right. I relent.

 

[3KZ is Football]

Great post. I think calling me a coach is a bit of a stretch. My coaching experience extends to coaching the Second 22 at a fairly renowned Melbourne Private School with a long history as a feeder school for the VFL / AFL and my sons Under 11’s. Rather than COACH, I prefer the title, ‘Student of the Game’.

To your question though, I always encouraged defenders to pick up the player we want them to be on. Forwards don’t get to choose their defender. The fact that Andrews seemed at sixes and sevens last weekend was testament to a lack of footy IQ, confidence and poor coaching. Simply put, if Andrews wants to play on Casboult, he goes to him and stands on his toes. Payne does the same with King. Simple. The problem last weekend was that Andrews was refusing to man anyone up and was playing wide of everyone, hoping to pick up intercept marks and that meant that the Suns had a day out at his expense. Call me old fashioned, but in my world, defenders pick up forwards.

 

[Grasshopper17]

Great post. I think calling me a coach is a bit of a stretch. My coaching experience extends to coaching the Second 22 at a fairly renowned Melbourne Private School and my sons Under 11’s. Rather than coach, I prefer the title, ‘student of the game’.

To your question though, I always encouraged defenders to pick up the player we want them to be on. Forwards don’t get to choose their defender. The fact that Andrews seemed at sixes and sevens last weekend was testament to a lack of confidence and poor coaching. Simply put, if Andrews wants to play on Casboult, he goes to him and stands on his toes. Payne does the same with King. Simple. The problem last weekend was that Andrews was refusing to man anyone up and was playing wide of everyone, hoping to pick up intercept marks and that meant that the Suns had a day out at his expense. Call me old fashioned, but in my world, defenders pick up forwards.

Yes. I'm similarly old school. But King went to Andrews. This is new school. Therein lies the problem. It means Andrews is suddenly marking two players - Casboult, the guy he wants to be playing on, and King, the guy who wants to play on Andrews.

Should we just dig our heels in and say "righto, if that's how you want it, fine, we'll send Payne to King anyway"? And suddenly you have this rather unsightly grouping of 2 on 2 making their way around the Gold Coast forward line. On one hand it might not help their structure ahead of the ball if they are forced to kick long. But on the other hand, it would free up space for their other forwards.

It also takes away our zoning intercept defender. I'd point out that having one of those is now a source of attack for many teams - all of the top 4 at least. Removing that aspect of our game also removes one source of "getting the ball". Little wonder then that our "scores from turnover" stat was through the floor on Saturday, according to Daniel Hoyne from Champion Data.

I appreciate I've still offered no solutions here

Footy was simpler back in the glory days wasn't it!

 

[3KZ is Football]

Yes. I'm similarly old school. But King went to Andrews. This is new school. Therein lies the problem. It means Andrews is suddenly marking two players - Casboult, the guy he wants to be playing on, and King, the guy who wants to play on Andrews.

Should we just dig our heels in and say "righto, if that's how you want it, fine, we'll send Payne to King anyway"? And suddenly you have this rather unsightly grouping of 2 on 2 making their way around the Gold Coast forward line. On one hand it might not help their structure ahead of the ball if they are forced to kick long. But on the other hand, it would free up space for their other forwards.

I'd also point out that having a zoning intercept defender is now the source of attack for many teams - all of the top 4 at least. Removing that aspect of our game also removes one source of "getting the ball". Little wonder then that our "scores from turnover" stat was through the floor on Saturday, according to Daniel Hoyne from Champion Data.

I appreciate I've still offered no solutions here

Footy was simpler back in the glory days wasn't it!

Again, great post. Andrew’s needed to TOP DOG the situation, and he didn’t. Disappointing given he is a Co-Captain.

 

[p4p1]

When things are going our way, you say?

Oh, so you mean like the time we led the Giants by 41 points only to concede 6 of the last 8 goals?

Or maybe you mean like the time we led Carlton by 40 points at 3 quarter time, having conceded just one goal in two quarters, yet Carlton were still a slugger's chance of winning with 5 minutes to go?

Perhaps you mean like the time we had Melbourne absolutely shot to ribbons, having kicked 13 of the last 18 goals to the midway point of the third quarter.

Nah, you must mean like the time we led Geelong by 37 points, just the other day, having conceded just one goal to time on of the third quarter.

You're quite right. I relent.

I think when he says going our way he means running forward when you might get on the end of the chain for a goal.

 

[p4p1]

Yes. I'm similarly old school. But King went to Andrews. This is new school. Therein lies the problem. It means Andrews is suddenly marking two players - Casboult, the guy he wants to be playing on, and King, the guy who wants to play on Andrews.

Should we just dig our heels in and say "righto, if that's how you want it, fine, we'll send Payne to King anyway"? And suddenly you have this rather unsightly grouping of 2 on 2 making their way around the Gold Coast forward line. On one hand it might not help their structure ahead of the ball if they are forced to kick long. But on the other hand, it would free up space for their other forwards.

It also takes away our zoning intercept defender. I'd point out that having one of those is now a source of attack for many teams - all of the top 4 at least. Removing that aspect of our game also removes one source of "getting the ball". Little wonder then that our "scores from turnover" stat was through the floor on Saturday, according to Daniel Hoyne from Champion Data.

I appreciate I've still offered no solutions here

Footy was simpler back in the glory days wasn't it!

Personally, I think you force the forwards hand by being happy to make sure it’s a 2+2 group. Eventually they’re going to want to go to different areas and the defenders get to play on who they want. Either it works and you get the matchup you wanted or it doesn’t work and allows too much space for their other forwards as you said and you adjust to that.

 

[Grasshopper17]

Personally, I think you force the forwards hand by being happy to make sure it’s a 2+2 group. Eventually they’re going to want to go to different areas and the defenders get to play on who they want. Either it works and you get the matchup you wanted or it doesn’t work and allows too much space for their other forwards as you said and you adjust to that.

I'm ok with this and it makes sense. But this ultimately means that Andrews would end up playing close to goal on Casboult, likely robbing us of our intercept marking defender further afield. Unless Payne can play this role, and maybe he can, but we haven't really seen it this year.

 

[Dalions]

Yes. I'm similarly old school. But King went to Andrews. This is new school. Therein lies the problem. It means Andrews is suddenly marking two players - Casboult, the guy he wants to be playing on, and King, the guy who wants to play on Andrews.

Should we just dig our heels in and say "righto, if that's how you want it, fine, we'll send Payne to King anyway"? And suddenly you have this rather unsightly grouping of 2 on 2 making their way around the Gold Coast forward line. On one hand it might not help their structure ahead of the ball if they are forced to kick long. But on the other hand, it would free up space for their other forwards.

It also takes away our zoning intercept defender. I'd point out that having one of those is now a source of attack for many teams - all of the top 4 at least. Removing that aspect of our game also removes one source of "getting the ball". Little wonder then that our "scores from turnover" stat was through the floor on Saturday, according to Daniel Hoyne from Champion Data.

I appreciate I've still offered no solutions here

Footy was simpler back in the glory days wasn't it!

It was a situation that our defenders didn’t handle very well at all.
I think the main problem was that Gold Coast have a genuine 3 tall forward line with King, Casboult and Lucosious and Andrews was trying to play as he normally does but should have just manned up imo.
They looked disorganised and let Gold Coast run the party.
It was a situation that we have seen a bit before with blokes like Harmes and Owens running with Harris to curb his influence but with Harris being the much bigger body it wasn’t as much of an issue.
GC having the three genuine talls made our boys panic a bit when we weren’t allowed to get the match ups we want.
Hopefully they will take the ‘Learnings’?

 

[dlanod]

He'll need counselling for what he did.

I hope the club wraps their arms around him and makes sure he's ok.

It must be traumatic to have this vision put up in the media.

Shame on them.

If you'd told me Kane Cornes had come out and said that, I'd believe you.

 

[Nunez]

Yep, glad you highlighted this.

Saturday's match was a glowing tribute to the raft of apologists within the club, on social media and on this forum who have spent much of the season spouting rubbish like "oh, the game was over so we put the cue in the rack in the last quarter" and "oh well, they're a good team so they were always gonna come at us".

By that very logic, we evidently are not a good team, because there was no "coming" at the Suns in the last quarter on Saturday. In fact it was quite the opposite... They ran all over the top of us.

Yes it is most likely true that the lack of a midfield rotation didn't help, which I addressed in the preview thread. But our growing body of work for season 2023 demonstrates pretty clearly that we are simply not fit enough to run out 4 quarters of footy. And it is just so stark when you sit up high behind the goals, and see it happen live in front of you, as I have for 19 games this season.

I like the 3 tall forward line setup from a structural point of view. But our players no longer have the fitness to make it work. This is not something that can be resolved between now and 30 September so will have to be top of the agenda from the first day of preseason, if not before.

Until then, we should be playing with 2 tall forwards and playing the extra small to allow us to cover the ground better.

Yeah I just don't see the three tall structure with Gunston as the third working come finals. Rayner as the third tall looked like we'd found the right mix as he is faster than a KPF and impacted at stoppages, while allowing Gunstons replacement to equally pressure and impact.

I know it's not the popular opinion but I feel Gunston has shown a lot since his return to the team, but ultimately he is just not the right player for the structure I feel will win us finals.

I still don't think it's a fitness thing though. I don't think you make top four not being able to run out games and am convinced we try and preserve scores/players instead of putting the foot down which has left us a bit exposed at times now that opposition teams have found a way to expose our fourth quarter style.

Certainly think some players should be fitter, but certainly don't think we're an unfit team.

 

[Nunez]

What's everyone's thoughts on what we should have done here? I've been wrestling with this for a few days and I think it's trickier than it seems. David King nailed it on AFL 360 last night - essentially it's a battle of wills.

We (as in the club) wanted Payne to play on King and Andrews to play on Casboult. These looked like being good matchups for us given the success Payne had on Max against St Kilda and the troubles both Kings have given Andrews in the past.

The key difference between St Kilda and Gold Coast was that St Kilda didn't really have anyone else. Membrey was out, so King really had to play as their number one tall forward, closer to goal, suiting our plans for both Payne and Andrews.

But Casboult is a much more suitable close-to-goal player, given King's pace.

So King decides to go and play on Andrews. But Andrews is already on Casboult. So now Andrews is marking two players. This is a tricky position for a defender because even if you win the contest, all you have is the ball or a stoppage. But if you lose the contest, which is more likely, it's almost a certain goal.

Do we send Payne further up field to try and be the intercept marking player? This is something we probably need to add to his skillset, but that might take another preseason or two.

This might not solve the Andrews problem, unless Payne starts picking them off with ridiculous regularity and demands someone goes to man him up (this is the exact reason King went to Andrews in the first place).

But this is a high risk policy. It relies on pressure on their midfield, which we didn't have. Otherwise they simply bypass Payne and we still have the 2 on 1 problem. So we relent. Andrews says "fine, I'll play on King, but still try to zone off". Only it turned out to be anything but fine.

So do we simply say "ok, we'll do away with playing our zoning intercept defender, and simply play one on one in defence"? This is what Gold Coast want, and it relies on our midfield to drop back and fill up the leading lanes, or to exert more pressure around the ball. And on Saturday we had neither, for reasons already discussed.

I'm interested to know what others would do in this situation. 3KZ is Football, you're a coach. What would you do in this situation?

Bear in mind we need to be ready to expect the same thing again on Sunday. Maybe Amiss goes to Andrews. Maybe Fogarty goes to him when we play Adelaide. Mihochek. The other King. Some big challenges ahead potentially.

We stuck with our zones for most of the game, whereas the mids leaked in a big way. When mids don't pressure inside 50s or turn the ball over in bad spots, zones yet exposed in a big way. IMO we should have been proactive in rotating to a true 1v1 while the mids were struggling. Easy in hindsight, but thought we should have done so in the third and fourth.

 

[bato]

When things are going our way, you say?

Oh, so you mean like the time we led the Giants by 41 points only to concede 6 of the last 8 goals?

Or maybe you mean like the time we led Carlton by 40 points at 3 quarter time, having conceded just one goal in two quarters, yet Carlton were still a slugger's chance of winning with 5 minutes to go?

Perhaps you mean like the time we had Melbourne absolutely shot to ribbons, having kicked 13 of the last 18 goals to the midway point of the third quarter.

Nah, you must mean like the time we led Geelong by 37 points, just the other day, having conceded just one goal to time on of the third quarter.

You're quite right. I relent.

You could put exactly what you said down to attitude/lack of application too.

I already said earlier that this team seems comfortable that half-efforts do the job more often than not.

 

[p4p1]

Yeah I just don't see the three tall structure with Gunston as the third working come finals. Rayner as the third tall looked like we'd found the right mix as he is faster than a KPF and impacted at stoppages, while allowing Gunstons replacement to equally pressure and impact.

I know it's not the popular opinion but I feel Gunston has shown a lot since his return to the team, but ultimately he is just not the right player for the structure I feel will win us finals.

I still don't think it's a fitness thing though. I don't think you make top four not being able to run out games and am convinced we try and preserve scores/players instead of putting the foot down which has left us a bit exposed at times now that opposition teams have found a way to expose our fourth quarter style.

Certainly think some players should be fitter, but certainly don't think we're an unfit team.

If players who do run defensively have to work harder to cover those that won’t or can’t, then it might look like we are unfit because our runners are stuffed after covering for others all game.

 

[Macca180]

still in shock

 

[BrisVegasDru]

No keep going. I agree with the majority of your posts. I've just reached the jaded stage of BigFooty.

What comes after jaded Briz? Wondering where my head will be next

 

[briztoon]

What comes after jaded Briz? Wondering where my head will be next

On your shoulders I hope.

 

[Nunez]

No keep going. I agree with the majority of your posts. I've just reached the jaded stage of BigFooty.

If you were a wrestler I'd say you're ready for a heel turn. It's time. Embrace the darkness

 

[mpal6]

We stuck with our zones for most of the game, whereas the mids leaked in a big way. When mids don't pressure inside 50s or turn the ball over in bad spots, zones yet exposed in a big way. IMO we should have been proactive in rotating to a true 1v1 while the mids were struggling. Easy in hindsight, but thought we should have done so in the third and fourth.

We had a clear 4th mid in Ashcroft who covered ground, provided presence in both forward and all the way back to kick outs. Raffling his spot with non-mids is a plan I still can't get my head around.

Leaving Dev aside, I'd take a proper mid in Lyons or even Matho at this stage than hope Zorko, Bailey, Rayner would do it. We're almost playing one short in midfield as well.

 

[Nunez]

We had a clear 4th mid in Ashcroft who covered ground, provided presence in both forward and all the way back to kick outs. Raffling his spot with non-mids is a plan I still can't get my head around.

Leaving Dev aside, I'd take a proper mid in Lyons or even Matho at this stage than hope Zorko, Bailey, Rayner would do it. We're almost playing one short in midfield as well.

I'd pick Dev over Lyons and Matho any day of the week tbh, with the exception being Lyons if Neale is out.

 

[Dalions]

I'd pick Dev over Lyons and Matho any day of the week tbh, with the exception being Lyons if Neale is out.

It’s as much about stopping the other team winning quality ball from the centre as it is winning the ball ourselves.
That’s why Dev is by far a better option than Matho or Lyons.
But as you say of Neale is out for some reason, Lyons is definitely the better option out of all 3.
I just hope we do not persist with the Zorko experiment today.

 

[Nunez]

It’s as much about stopping the other team winning quality ball from the centre as it is winning the ball ourselves.
That’s why Dev is by far a better option than Matho or Lyons.
But as you say of Neale is out for some reason, Lyons is definitely the better option out of all 3.
I just hope we do not persist with the Zorko experiment today.

I guarantee you there is no chance Zorko plays midfield today

 

[Dalions]

I guarantee you there is no chance Zorko plays midfield today

I am sure he will be at a centre bounce or 2 which is fine but no more than that please

 

[mpal6]

I am sure he will be at a centre bounce or 2 which is fine but no more than that please

Nope. Zero center bounces today. Guaranteed !

 

[Nunez]

I am sure he will be at a centre bounce or 2 which is fine but no more than that please

He, Neale and High will also finish today with zero touches. If I'm wrong, I'll buy the entire board a Big Footy membership!