Review Round 6, 2023 - GWS vs. Brisbane Lions

[M Malice]

He went limp to win a free kick. Which he did.

No biological male ever goes limp deliberately.

 

[trikster]

No biological male ever goes limp deliberately.

FACTS

 

[Elixuh]

Actually, there is. If the ball carrier has no prior opportunity he still must make a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball.

I've noticed so many more players this year using the Tom Hickey ruckman-style defence of simply submitting in the tackle, pretending they're pinned and can't possibly do anything to dispose. Umpires are falling for it and calling for ball ups.

Now these sling tackles are coming into play tho also and it means now the ball carrier might also get a free kick for that. So yet another reason to submit in the tackle.

So much for "genuine attempt".

It all just points to prior opportunity needing to get in the bin. Quickly.

You know what I mean re onus in this instance. That doesn’t create an onus on the ball carrier to fight the tackle, it just provides a consequence for not fighting the tackle.

Players will routinely accept a HTB decision against them so that the ball doesn’t spill out and the oppo are given an opportunity to move the ball quickly before the defence can setup (also on the off chance the ump doesn’t call htb).

We were well up in the game looking to slow the play down. Neale accepted the tackle which he is entitled to do.

 

[irel]

It's ingrained into the "Ozzy culcha." Blame the victim, not the perpetrator.

 

[irel]

Neale made him do it.
He wanted to have his head slammed into the turf.

 

[irel]

See what you made me do.

 

[Gadzorks]

An intriguing game. I need to break up my thoughts by department.

Forwards

Super effort by Charlie. Liked Joe's game. Couldn't believe Taylor was given the role to play on him basically the role time he was playing forward, so it was absolutely the right move to get him up the ground. Even better was the fact we were able to use him in transition cos Taylor wasn't mobile enough to go with him. Liked Hipwood's game contrary to a lot of views.

Gunston's efforts when the ball hits the ground is a concern. Queen Mary turning circle among other things. Come on Jack prove me wrong.

Also 2-7 in the last quarter after 5-7 last week. 1-3 vs the Dogs and 1-4 vs Melbourne. Is it fatigue? Why does this not happen down the other end? My main concern is that nobody's gonna be too bothered about this. Until it costs us a win. Which could be in a knockout final.

Defence

Hands were full pretty much all day/night. Payne superb, Andrews pretty good, Joyce... I'm not going here again but with Gardiner out for a while longer, it's a pity Tommy Fullarton is now exclusively a forward by the look. That's about as tactful as I can get for Darragh. Come on lad get together with Jack and prove me wrong.

Great run from Conor and defensive intent from Kiddy. Coleman seems to have taken to the whole "intercept pressure" game like a duck to water. Which leads me to the...

Midfield

I need to preface this by saying I was behind the goals at our cheer squad end (the end we kicked to in the last quarter). I sat as far back/up as I could, but at Manuka that's not very high, so my view of the whole ground was really pretty average. So take my thoughts with however many grains of salt as you like.

Anyhoo, did it look to anyone else like our entire midfield just decided to completely abandon our new and improved game plan of "sit back and intercept their handball chains, or make them go around us"? It looked like we went back to our old style tried and not-all-that-trusted "hey everybody let's all dive in for the ball and not worry about it if it squirts out of the area".

TV people use stats to tell them what the story should be... I try to use them in the reverse way, ie "this is the story in my head, do the numbers match up with what I'm thinking or am I full of it?"



Anyway I've had a look after the game and we've lost uncontested ball by NINETY FOUR. Now, JasRulz63 is right, we have lost this stat in other games. But this discrepancy is creeping into Round 1 v Port areas. We got absolutely thumped, and the more I think about it, the creeping sense of unease I had right throughout the last 3 quarters was because the game reminded me so much of so many games in 2022. Leave their midfield to basically do as they please, and rely on our defence or their own skill errors to bail us out.

The biggest problem when we all go in for the ball like this is it creates a domino effect. The next bloke has to come off his man to challenge the guy who's running with the ball, and it cascades right the way down the field. No wonder they got so many goals from our front half.

But anyway I can whinge all I want, but I'm more interested in understanding WHY we decided to move away from what looked to be working very successfully in the last fortnight.

Is it:

1. Base (most likely) case

Our mids are all natural ball winners, and that's their standard MO... See ball, get ball. That's not just how they've been trained here under Fagan, it's basically how they've played footy their whole lives, remembering most of them would have been the best player in their teams at youth level. So it's hard to undo all that "muscle memory" at the flick of a switch.

If this is it, the new method(s) need to be continually and consistently drilled, over and over again at training, till they become second nature.

2. Pessimistic case

3KZ is Football, if you don't wish to know the score, please look away now. Jarryd Lyons has been highly regarded as somewhat of an organiser, maybe even a pseudo coach, of our midfield. But he wasn't in the senior setup until last week. Is it possible that in his absence the coaches and players in the senior team devised new methods and plans that he wasn't aware of? And when he came back into the fold he's gone back to enforcing those old methods on the lads by sheer will and personality and footy IQ?

If this is the case he needs to be told to get out of it! The 2023 model looks better and works better.

(I don't think this is the case by the way. I'd imagine our VFL team is drilled to play more or less the same as the senior team.)

3. Optimistic case

This is by far my favourite. I don't think it's what's happening but my word it would be amazing if it were, and absolute 864D chess by Fages and Cam Bruce.

We rolled out the "intercept handball" model for the Collingwood game, cos we were 1-2 and "well we really need a win here". We didn't really want to cos you know, Easter Thursday and national TV audience etc, but "hopefully people will think it was just a ploy to beat Collingwood and will largely ignore it beyond that".

Then we thought "hmmmm that worked really well. We can probably get away with it against North, cos it's the 1pm Saturday game out in The Stix and nobody will be watching anyway". It's worked a treat there as well, everyone's blamed North's defence and Fages got out of the presser without any questions about it.

So at this stage he's like the cat that got the cream. So now we're shelving the whole strategy and reverting to our somewhat ugly method of winning games from last season, hoping to keep ticking along in the background with nobody noticing us. And then next time we really need a win, (hopefully not till finals!) we'll bring back out this nuclear weapon again.

I really don't think this is the case, but I'd be mighty impressed if it was. As well as a touch disappointed, because I was just getting a taste of the good stuff!

Anyway I'd be interested to know if anyone else thought Saturday's game felt like 2022 all over again. To me, none of our other games (since Round 1) have felt anything like last year, but this one did. It was eerie in that way.

Your optimistic case was how Anna Meares beat Victoria Pendleton for gold in the women's sprint cycling in 2012 Olympics.

Anna learnt to hold the bike totally stationary on the velodrome slope and won races with the tactic (opponent forced to the front, Anna behind in the control position).

She did not use that tactic in any international meets leading up the Olympics.

Can't remember if it was only used in the gold medal race or the whole meet.

But was a deliberate decision to keep her weapon secret.

There's an episode of Australian story about Anna. Definately worth the watch.

 

[Kernel Kurtz]

Both those situations suck for GWS. I hope the guy Coleman cleaned up was ok, think he damaged his knee. Lucky he didn't get reviewed for that, was a bit of a dog act I really didn't like to see

Ihave a lot of love for Kiddy , but not impressed.
Can't remember if Kiddy's push was in the back or side, doesn't matter , I agree it was a below the belt act and not warrented at all.
If it was on the other foot we would all be fuming .
It was behind play , he's lucky not to cop weeks for that or even more.

 

[Gadzorks]

Ihave a lot of love for Kiddy , but not impressed.
Can't remember if Kiddy's push was in the back or side, doesn't matter , I agree it was a below the belt act and not warrented at all.
If it was on the other foot we would all be fuming .
It was behind play , he's lucky not to cop weeks for that or even more.

Lack of discipline, not acceptable.

Kiddy wasn't having a great game. He kept making mistakes. Granted, he often then did something amazing to fix the mistake but it wasn't anywhere near his finest game.

Might have let that get to him and lost the plot.

 

[jjami15]

Kiddy wasn't having a great game. He kept making mistakes. Granted, he often then did something amazing to fix the mistake but it wasn't anywhere near his finest game.

Kiddy hasn't had a great year or even a good year for that matter.

 

[POBT]

I think the main contributing factor to our inconsistent performance on Saturday was work rate. Fagan made mention of it when interviewed at half (?) time - that he challenged the team to work harder. We lifted work rate for a 15 minute stint in that third quarter and looked a million bucks. And I reckon we got our hands dirty towards the end of the game, to ensure the result. But when our work rate dropped, GWS were able to take advantage. If our work rate is not where we want it to be, it stands to reason that stats like uncontested possessions and "pressure acts" drop off. Put Fagan's comments together with the stats and what we saw with our eyes, and it makes complete sense that we just weren't on our game in terms of consistent effort, and that has knock on impacts on the way we attack and defend. I think there are excuses for that - back to back travel and a lack of external motivation (small market, opposition towards the bottom of the table, in an off broadway game). Across 23 games, it is hard to maintain the rage every week.

Having said that, I am not automatically in the camp of "we're 4-2 - everything must be fine". I spent most of last season thinking we weren't playing all that well, despite the fact that we were top 4. Last year felt like a slog with our ball movement and our defensive system (and effort) was routinely poor. When you're a top side, winning regular season games regularly does not necessarily mean you're playing well - sometimes talent overcomes a poor system or work ethic.

This year, I'm seeing a brand of footy which looks sustainable - it is a game plan which suits our list and will stand up under pressure. Our two good wins so far against quality opposition reinforces that view. Contrast that to last year (and a couple before that) when our stoppage heavy, slow and deliberate, long down the line play was (moderately) successful against the average/poor sides and came unstuck against the best teams. I'm now in a position where I think that, with this new system, if we play our game plan well, and our players maintain their work rate, we will be difficult to beat. Plan + Talent + Effort = Success.

Now, I don't think we did play our game well on Saturday, and I don't think we did maintain our work rate all game. But, if that's what a win looks like on 80% work rate and somewhat imperfect implementation of plan, then I think it's a pretty positive sign for the season.

 

[Warwick]

Good points as always POBT.

Been a bit in the media about us losing the uncontested ball comprehensively. That has never been our game - our possession numbers are always low.

 

[martinson]

Don't get the irrelevant discussion on SM re Neale. He can stand there if he wants ,not try to break a tackle or dispose of the ball if he could. It's then up to the umpire whether that's penalised or not. What you can't do is sling him to the ground the way Ward did. He had him cold. It was totally unnecessary.

 

[Tom14]

Good points as always POBT.

Been a bit in the media about us losing the uncontested ball comprehensively. That has never been our game - our possession numbers are always low.

I made the same point in my preview thread for the Freo game - no issue with us losing uncontested possession counts because we don't throw the ball around by handball or do lots of junk kicks chipping it around in the back half. However, I do think we want to restrict the opposition a bit more in terms of uncontested footy so that it gets back inside contest where we can apply more pressure.

 

[JasRulz63]

I think the uncontested possession differentials during the game reflect the work rate point that POBT articulated well.

When our work rate drops off, we tend to give up more uncontested disposals because there's not as much closing down of the space. When we click back into gear however we work harder to shut down the space and even if the opposition is chipping the ball around they're not making progress down the field.

While our uncontested possession differential has never been great, we haven't traditionally give up this big of a differential.

 

[Bucking Beads]

We need to be more ruthless in these types of games. You only have to look at what the Cats did to the Swans to see the difference between Premiers and Wannabes.

 

[alscotoz2]

Just watched the highlights and haven't read the thread, do apologies if already covered.
The 'flick' goal by Cameron in the first quarter was sublime. That level of awareness cannot be coached. I'd say goal of the season so far. Genius

 

[SizeMatters]

We need to be more ruthless in these types of games. You only have to look at what the Cats did to the Swans to see the difference between Premiers and Wannabes.

Honestly we aren’t really a ruthless team. We get a few goals up and start to lay off the pedal. Has been like this for years. Even the Norf game we could have won by 100 easy that’s how s**t they were but really didn’t sink the dagger in when we could have. Under Matthews and Voss those guys wanted to not only win but hurt opposition on the scoreboard. I think Fagan and our leaders at the club are too passive.

 

[twhowler]

Interesting discussion re effort / game-plan / contested possession.

I was at the game on Saturday and there was an uneasy feeling about our lead. We would turn it on and look like kicking away, and then seemingly relax and let them get back in to it. I also think the Giants are not a bad side and playing a decent brand under Kingsley which shouldn't be ignored.

It was definitely a patchy win. There was a period of sustained pressure from the Giants in the last quarter during which it looked like we might really get a scare. We were 20 odd points up and the ball was camped in their forward 50 and when Greene marked in the pocket i thought okay this will be interesting margin will be 15 points see what we are made of. He missed (played on way too quickly but we were at least alert to it and pressure him) so we'll never know BUT from that point we dominated the rest of the quarter. I thought that was encouraging - that we were able to seize on that mistake and take the game completely away from them. Patchy wins do happen and we did lead the entire match mostly keeping it above 3 goals.

I agree with others the midfield gave up too much uncontested possession. Giants had 97 more possessions overall including 93 more uncontested. It did seem like we just gave them that 5m of space that is the difference between another possession or a ball-up in AFL. BUT i don't think it tells the whole story. We still won the inside 50 count 59-51. That doesn't happen if the other side is just streaming free. We gave them possession but they did have to chip / handball around a lot. We also won marks inside 50 15-12 - not a smashing at all but clearly we were not letting them waltz in. Against Port we lost uncontested possession by 127 (WOW by the way) but also lost inside 50s 65-40 and marks inside 50 24-6. So while the uncontested in this game was similar the rest of the stats that can flow from that were not.

I think in particular our midfield would have got a good reminder from Fagan about consistency of work-rate. Pleasingly we got the lesson and the WIN.

I was most intrigued by starting Dunkley forward and Berry on the wing. That makes us very small in the centre square! Dunkley seemed to play more mid as the game went on. And we won clearances well. I note we had 9 players who attended a centre square ball-up. Hoping it's a rotation thing and Fagan is conscious of our size in there. I think if we are saving Berry for the bigger teams then that's smart. But i think Zorko should be a spurt player there not back as a main midfielder. Some stat-person will have the stats on attendances i am sure and make a mockery of this post! I was watching while wrangling 2 young kids...

Daniher i loved the effort. Was getting beaten easily by Taylor so got on his bike. Kicked a lovely long goal.

Payne looked sublime in the air particularly early.

Hipwood i actually think competed quite well. I seem to be alone there. Not much of it so not a good game but i thought he was honest and not outmarked much.

McCarthy achieved the top speed for any player in the game. A reminder he can be that pressure forward if we wants to be. I thought he was decent.

Coleman clearly out of form this year and very fumbly. But I thought he saved several goals with his desperation - leaping at a handball at the last-minute to get a hand to it. He has an uncanny knack for closing down a player at the last second. That determination is great to see because we already know he is a brilliant kick but being an excellent defender is an extra string to his bow.

Rich i thought had one of his better games. No way he gets dropped off that. I remain of the view he should not be an automatic selection. He watched Hogan take a mark in the last quarter then just pointed at the tall defender who was out of position. Very bad look. He has a big body and often puts it in harms way but was poor on this occasion.

Finally Gunston - again I just hope he is not an automatic solution. Does some nice things. Clever player. Quite slow! Also his set-shot kicking is not what it once was. Keeps his spot for now but Fagan should have an open mind as to whether it's him or Fort.

 

[Nathan Barley]

We need to be more ruthless in these types of games. You only have to look at what the Cats did to the Swans to see the difference between Premiers and Wannabes.

Is it a case of not being ruthless or just not being good enough?

I don't understand what people say when they say we're not ruthless enough. Maybe we're just not good enough to control the games for long enough.

 

[Grasshopper17]

Honestly we aren’t really a ruthless team. We get a few goals up and start to lay off the pedal. Has been like this for years. Even the Norf game we could have won by 100 easy that’s how s**t they were but really didn’t sink the dagger in when we could have. Under Matthews and Voss those guys wanted to not only win but hurt opposition on the scoreboard. I think Fagan and our leaders at the club are too passive.

I've detected a bit of a change from Fages this season... A bit more of a harder edge. He may have always had it but has suppressed it due to relative youth of the group. Moving back up to the coaches box may have also influenced this perception.

So this may flow through to the playing group, but it may take time.

The other thing I've noticed at times (from both his words and actions) is that Fages is often relieved to simply win the game. I wonder if the bar needs to be set a bit higher, or better yet, ignoring the scoreboard to a large extent and focusing on the "how are we actually playing?"

When we were struggling in 2017 and 2018 a lot of the time we celebrated little wins when there wasn't much scoreboard nourishment. I really feel like that ignorance of the score served us well, and that we would do well to return to that.

If we play well, the result will generally take care of itself, but I think in the last couple of years we have allowed ourselves to get too caught up in getting the result, rather than playing the right way for as close to 4 quarters as possible.

A simple analogy is the running shot for goal from 50 on the boundary when you have a loose team mate at the top of the goal square. You might kick the goal, but you still should have kicked it to your team mate. The process is more important than the outcome.

 

[p4p1]

I have felt that Daniher only starts to get going after he has been in the ruck for the first time. Should we consider having him take the first centre bounce and planting O deep forward? Even if it is only for the first couple of mins before they swap. To me eye he is just more in the zone.

I'm not sure whether the slight drop off in effort is a bad thing considering the length of the season. It's bad if it becomes a habit and we get overrun by strong teams obviously but if it helps us get to September in better shape then I am not upset about it either.

 

[Grasshopper17]

I have felt that Daniher only starts to get going after he has been in the ruck for the first time. Should we consider having him take the first centre bounce and planting O deep forward? Even if it is only for the first couple of mins before they swap. To me eye he is just more in the zone.

I've often thought this too. I guess the only concern is that the other team's number one ruckman would (or should) likely see it as an opportunity to absolutely smash Joe and really get stuck into him. Hurt him either physically or psychologically.

So I don't think we'll see it, but it's an interesting question.

 

[Tom14]

Is it a case of not being ruthless or just not being good enough?

I don't understand what people say when they say we're not ruthless enough. Maybe we're just not good enough to control the games for long enough.

Kicking 2.7 in the last quarter was the biggest reason the margin wasn't bigger. Just as kicking 22.20 rather than 26.16 was why we didn't win by 100 last week. Pretty simple really.

 

[Nathan Barley]

Kicking 2.7 in the last quarter was the biggest reason the margin wasn't bigger. Just as kicking 22.20 rather than 26.16 was why we didn't win by 100 last week. Pretty simple really.

Yeah so we just weren't good enough to kick straighter or getting easier shots