Review Round 6, 2025 - Brisbane Lions vs. Collingwood

[Mayestro]

Will be interested in this

The worst evidence of all, anecdotal, says to me Starce is so good at reading the play. I assume he averages high intercept possessions? When he gets one he is so clean whether it be ground or air. And an attack is totally nullified. He also takes their best small / mid. Now it's Noah. Who usually gets their second. Who gets their second? Jaspa? He is a good attacking half back but doesn't strike me as lockdown

Not sure who else to play there, Brain would be the one i would give another go as he is good in the air like starce but i don't watch 2s. Brain to hb / fletcher wing.

I know Brain had a couple of bad moments in our losses, but his debut was awesome vs the crows and he looked really good back there overall, seems weird he hasn't been given another shot

Of the reserves games I’ve seen Brain hasn’t set the world of fire. Beecken has been far superior but neither of them are really lock down defenders. Normally I would’ve trusted Gardiner more to play small but he’s been playing as a forward this year.

 

[Bucking Beads]

The loss I think we could all see coming but ffs I hate how we roll out that junk against Collingwood.

 

[twhowler]

Of the reserves games I’ve seen Brain hasn’t set the world of fire. Beecken has been far superior but neither of them are really lock down defenders. Normally I would’ve trusted Gardiner more to play small but he’s been playing as a forward this year.

probably hard to replace starce

we seem to be a bit down on intercepts. maybe brain to half back and wilmot more lockdown?

just think the balance is out

 

[p4p1]

Interesting your comments about Daicos.

To me it was a classic case of scoreboard pressure, and the importance of having the lead.

We're down by 19 points at half time and with Daicos basically off the chain, we felt the need to make a move.

But guess what, ignore all the carry on about clearances and the inside 50 count (we'd had 21 which is not many for a half but they had only had 25 themselves). We'd had 13 shots to 12, 100% of our scores were from set shots, which actually suggests we were looking pretty dangerous when we DID go forward. 10 set shots at goal and 13 shots from 21 entries is an excellent conversion rate, against any defence, let alone a good one.

And expected score backed that up: it depends which measure you use but WheeloRatings has us ahead 44-41 at half time.

Now imagine if that WAS the half time score. Do you think we'd have been so keen to make a move on Daicos?

We had one bad quarter, the 3rd, which if I recall correctly (I don't have the quarter-by-quarter stats for individuals) was also Daicos' quietest.

So what does that tell you?

To me it suggests that on this occasion, Berry going to Daicos actually hurt OUR setup more than it hurt Collingwood. I imagine we went into the game with our plans, which didn't seem to be working given Daicos' own output, but maybe it actually wasn't working out too badly across the whole field? So when we went away from our own plans, it actually upset US more than THEM.

At the end of the day, we lose on expected score 75-90. Far more competitive than the whitewash on the scoreboard, and similar to our match against the Giants in Round 7 last year. Take out that third quarter, and we actually win on expected score 65-58.

So Thursday night's result comes down to 2 things:

1. The importance of starting well. Playing the game from in front. You take the lead, you force the opposition to change things, and you get to find out whether THEY have a plan B. We got pantsed 4-12 in clearances in the first quarter. After that it was pretty even really, so going forward it's really important for our midfield to start well and set the tone for the game.

2. Conversion. Conversion. Conversion. We've been pretty good this season up until Thursday night. Hopefully this serves as a reminder we need to be on song in this regard all the time.

An aside on the crowd. Being there on Thursday night it was evident we were well and truly gee'd up for the game, and as soon as some of those 50/50 or even 60/40 umpiring calls went against us, we absolutely piled in and for a good hour there in the middle of the game the Gabba was a pretty hostile place to be.

I have often wondered, and did so again on Thursday night, if sometimes this affects our guys out on the field, allowing ourselves to get sucked in to similar shenanigans and losing our discipline as a result. Which of course just has an ever-escalating feedback loop with the crowd.

Our players have of course been through the wringer of 6 consecutive finals series, 16 finals, 4 prelims and 2 granny's, so you would think the emotional intelligence/strength would be there to keep your cool in these types of situations. But I felt we regressed a bit on Thursday night... It reminded me a bit of that Qualifying Final we played against Richmond in 2019. I thought the effort from our guys was pretty good for much of the night, but we let ourselves down at key moments with a couple of needless free kicks which resulted in opposition goals.

I was pleased we fought the game out. Thought the effort was there right to the end. Just outsmarted in some key moments, and obviously missing some more easy chances in the last quarter cost us. If the 5 day break affected us at all, perhaps it was more mental than physical.

Have to give a lot of credit to Collingwood. They played arguably the perfect game against us and completely took away pretty much everything we wanted to do. We tear our hair out at Bailey running too far and then giving away 50, Zorko getting run down from behind when he had a man loose on the wing, etc. That's our opposition taking away options we've been able to find pretty much every time we've needed to in our last 10 games.

And then that results in other knock on effects, where we see Jack Payne drop a pretty straightforward mark which results in a goal, Berry runs under an uncontested mark on the wing he'd take 9 times out of 10. Another goal. Morris missing that sitter at the start of the last quarter.

Hopefully our coaching group is able to use Thursday night's game as in essence a coaching manual for the rest of the season. We only had to get a couple of those moments right, make a bit more of our chances in front of goal, and we probably win the game, as incredible as that seems.

Keep your chins up folks!

View attachment 2289839

Bez to Daicos completely messed our positioning up. Unfortunately, Bez is probably the only guy that can go with Daicos aerobically and be able to do a shutdown job.
Only missing Starce and Kai but clearly those two out hampered our options in some way to tag Daicos.
I wonder if you are best off having a player take Daicos each quarter. That way he is having to run against a fresher player each quarter and shouldn't be able to wear his direct opponent down through run.
Then as you said, our worst quarter was also his worst quarter, so I don't know how damaging he is most of the time. So maybe you are better off letting him run around during general play and only putting time into him at the stoppages and during the spread from stoppages.

Bails was unlucky with the original free kick. It was definitely there but it is also enforced randomly. Obviously the length of the 50 was insane but we have also been told that if a player falls for a faked handball then it wouldn't be a 50 and they would just be called back to their mark.

We are an experienced team and should have been better but I think, when players both individually and collectively are feeling like they are being cheated, unfairly treated etc whatever the case is, it is harder to not react and let it get into your head even though you know that is the smarter thing to do at the time. Now magnify it being Collingwood who often appear to get the rub of the green. You get a sense of, I knew this was going to happen, of course it happens against the Pies. The vision of Fages trying to get Zorks to calm down was very telling. The anger and frustration spreads like wildfire through a team, and Fages was doing his best to put the fire out. I am sure he was seething at some of the calls.

We got smashed in the contest, which is usually our bread and butter. The mids were a bit off, O was off and as you have said, Collingwood was coached very well and their coaches and players did an excellent job of not letting us get back into it and not allowing our normal avenues to turn the momentum.

 

[Grasshopper17]

Then as you said, our worst quarter was also his worst quarter, so I don't know how damaging he is most of the time. So maybe you are better off letting him run around during general play and only putting time into him at the stoppages and during the spread from stoppages.

This is my contention. I know it doesn't seem to make sense. But I'm more interested in winning than making sense.

 

[Sanchez365]

The bails 50 was absolutely an error as fake handballs shouldn't be called 50 anymore. We got generally reamed in that first quarter, there was another call on McCluggage where he collected and got immediately tackled by Pendles only to get done holding the ball cause he "only had one arm pinned" even though they were running in the tackle.

Tbh I thought we actually played okay besides a few obvious howlers invited by their good pressure game.

As for Daicos, Dunkley has been a good matchup for the strong inside bulls that used to dominate us like Cripps / Oliver / Bonts, but we need someone who can play that more defensive role on an outside midfielder that has pace. I would have thought someone like Wilmot would be a perfect person for that kind of role. He's effectively our new version of Crisp, a fast, rangy half back who seems to have the traffic nous to get through contested situations. He would have been my pick to go to Daicos, but I can also see if Berry upset our rotations so badly Wilmot probably would have been worse. Still, it's a position we could do with developing, Daicos and the pies as much as I hate them will be around come September.

 

[Grasshopper17]

there was another call on McCluggage where he collected and got immediately tackled by Pendles only to get done holding the ball cause he "only had one arm pinned" even though they were running in the tackle.

Like it or not that is how the rule is currently meant to be interpreted, and the umpire got it right on that occasion. If only the non-ball-carrying arm is pinned and the player has not had prior opportunity, they are still required to make a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball. And the way the rule is currently interpreted, this "genuine attempt" is that the ball carrier is required to drop the ball somewhere in the vicinity of their foot.

Don't hate on the umpire on this one. They are only following orders. Hate on the rule, and more to the point, its current interpretation.

 

[Nunez]

Like it or not that is how the rule is currently meant to be interpreted, and the umpire got it right on that occasion. If only the non-ball-carrying arm is pinned and the player has not had prior opportunity, they are still required to make a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball. And the way the rule is currently interpreted, this "genuine attempt" is that the ball carrier is required to drop the ball somewhere in the vicinity of their foot.

Don't hate on the umpire on this one. They are only following orders. Hate on the rule, and more to the point, its current interpretation.

The game would be a LOT more watchable if umpires started calling every dropped ball incorrect disposal. No prior + dropped ball should never be play on if the player is being tackled.

 

[Grasshopper17]

The game would be a LOT more watchable if umpires started calling every dropped ball incorrect disposal. No prior + dropped ball should never be play on if the player is being tackled.

 

[Sanchez365]

Like it or not that is how the rule is currently meant to be interpreted, and the umpire got it right on that occasion. If only the non-ball-carrying arm is pinned and the player has not had prior opportunity, they are still required to make a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball. And the way the rule is currently interpreted, this "genuine attempt" is that the ball carrier is required to drop the ball somewhere in the vicinity of their foot.

Don't hate on the umpire on this one. They are only following orders. Hate on the rule, and more to the point, its current interpretation.

I understand the rule and probably didn't explain it well. The quotes were because the umpire guessed Clug had an arm free because it kinda looked like that, but Pendles was really holding both his arms. It was just another example of us getting rough calls in that first quarter.

 

[Tom14]

Like it or not that is how the rule is currently meant to be interpreted, and the umpire got it right on that occasion. If only the non-ball-carrying arm is pinned and the player has not had prior opportunity, they are still required to make a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball. And the way the rule is currently interpreted, this "genuine attempt" is that the ball carrier is required to drop the ball somewhere in the vicinity of their foot.

Don't hate on the umpire on this one. They are only following orders. Hate on the rule, and more to the point, its current interpretation.

Totally correct, but you also get pinged occasionally for attempting to dispose of it - like Kai in the 4th quarter of the prelim where he immediately drops the ball to try and kick it and misses.

I don't think consistency is ever achievable no matter the rule settings, and am generally fine with 'dropping the ball' to not be paid that much. Anything that keeps the game flowing - either by paying more HTB frees, or letting players get loose with disposal is fine.

 

[Grasshopper17]

Totally correct, but you also get pinged occasionally for attempting to dispose of it - like Kai in the 4th quarter of the prelim where he immediately drops the ball to try and kick it and misses.

I don't think consistency is ever achievable no matter the rule settings, and am generally fine with 'dropping the ball' to not be paid that much. Anything that keeps the game flowing - either by paying more HTB frees, or letting players get loose with disposal is fine.

I think consistency is more achievable if "prior opportunity" is eliminated from the laws of the game.

 

[Nathan Barley]

 

[Mr Ripper]

As brilliant a footballer as Daicos is, he is an absolute cat.

 

[Section 5]

He should have been fined more in my opinion.
To me it looks like he did it to both feet of Berry.
Could easily have broken a bone in Berrys foot with that action.

 

[Elixuh]

People were critical of the ‘faux tough guy’ stuff against Daicos earlier in the thread. I think roughness and physicality is a legitimate strategy against someone like Daicos who doesn’t like the physical element of the game. He is a great player but his style of play is very clear to see. It’s also a bit of a flag that Fly has complained about it in multiple pressers over the years.