Review Round 6 - Sydney v Brisbane review thread

[Ironmonger]

I don't tend to watch the afternoon away games too closely on TV (I'm generally doing something with my kids). I did watch the first quarter yesterday and was as disappointed as most. However, when I had the time last night, I watched the whole game and so have now subjected myself to the first quarter twice.....and here's what I reckon.

That first quarter was nowhere near as bad as the efforts v the Kangas or the Dogs in terms of desire. I reckon we went into the game thinking "We can't let them blow us away". In fact, it was probably a mantra that we had to start really well. But, as soon as Sydney kicked their first goals, we went to pieces mentally. Our blokes simply couldn't cope with the fact that Sydney put pressure on us early. We became tentative and reactive. But I didn't think we were soft or lacked intensity - unlike the two games in Melbourne, we tried hard - we simply didn't have the resilience to fight back.

In short, we have to become mentally stronger. Yes, we are a young group. Yes, we lack the big time experience of the Swans. But, to be honest, if our group of youngish midfielders are going to be any good long term, they need to step up and take charge of making this team as resilient as possible. Forget Brown, Merrett, Adcock, Patfull, McGrath - it is actually incumbent on guys in their 5th or 6th year of footy to grab the group by the scruff of the neck and say "harden the **** up" when things don't go our way. Leuenberger, Redden, Rockliff etc are now guys are the prime movers - this is their side now.

IMO, the single most important thing holding us back is the mental resilience to deal with adversity and the ruthlessness to drive an opposition into the ground when we're on top. We should have beaten Adelaide but didn't because we missed the opportunity to destroy them when we dominated the third quarter. And we should never drop our heads when an opposition kicks a couple of goals - as we have done most of the year.

I'm not suggesting that we don't have flaws or that there aren't other issues - but until we become more resilient, we're going to stagnate.

Absolutely agree.

Confidence. Confidence. Confidence.

No accident that Voss referred to the leaders needing to stand up. Right now I think the boys are looking round at each other wondering who they can rely on.

Only thing I will clarify is that players like Merrett, Adocock and McGrath need to display leadership as well as the 5/6 year players, rather than instead of.

 

[Apex61]

My 50 cents worth.

I think Ben Hudson last year added a big body and a lot of experience into the midfield.
I think Ben along with Black helped us a lot last year pick up those extra wins.
Even Goose with the way he attacked the ball in defence.

Even in my real life job I am into my 9th year and I am pretty battle hardened now .
My biggest hope is the team can stay stable and grow together as a team.

 

[charles202]

I think that our spread at the moment is being hindered by our poor disposal, it would be very mentally hard for a player to run to space, knowing that there is a fair chance that a poor kick could result in a turnover and their man running the other way.

Of course its a catch 22 with it being more likely of a turnover if players arent running hard to find space. Unfortunetly, this will only come with game repitition and trust in your team mates.

 

[Dizzle]

The problem with the Lions in 2013 stems from one word. We are 'reactive' in all categories.

At every stoppage in the first 20 minutes Sunday saw our boys standing by until the ball either came to them or a Swan got his hands on it. Once they got it things got worse, we stayed off our man until the ball was in the air. Only then did we decide what to do. When we got the ball in 99% of situations a Swan was already hanging off us.

They forced us to move it on, we allowed them to move where and when they wanted, especially as they went forward.

Other examples are everywhere. Patfull trailed Goodes to the ball at the ruck in the first quarter for a goal. Everyone trailed Jetta at times in the game. No-one seemed to run at him or to make him taste grass at any stage. (And can we end all this 'slingshot' crap? The slingshot is Jetta runs with the ball. That's it.)

Only Yeo and Hanley took the game on at certain stages with any consistency, forcing the action and making something happen for a few seconds at a time. Lester and Adcock were good but hardly made the game bend to them. In fact for the North, Doggies and Swans games we have appeared to allow the other teams to set the terms and define the state of play. A shocking trend that cannot be allowed to continue.

Reactive. Reactive. Reactive.

This is in direct contrast with the preseason where we played the game with a distinct gameplan, our 'Coke bottle offence'; start it the bottom, stay wide until forward of centre, then bring the ball into the middle to open up the forward line.

Our mids are the main problem at the moment. You can't name 1 of our core midfield group who are at or even near their best. Moloney has perhaps been the most consistent. If you label the individual player's best as a 10, Redden, Rockliff and Rich are all under 7 so far. Raines hasn't had enough of a go, and Leuey is on the way back. It baffles me why Leuey as first ruck doesn't demand first crack in the centre.

Conversely the Swans mids were back creating numbers, linking through the centre and pushing forwards to kick goals. The fact that we broke even at the centre after qtr time means we aren't working enough. If we can win more than half of the contests that we attend in equal numbers - with the centre bounce being the time when both sides have equal numbers in attendance - then we simply aren't getting to enough contests.

The signs were slightly positive from about two minutes to go in the first, and we were only OK after that. We have had three dispiriting 10 goal horrors in 6 games. Our mids aren't working hard enough, meaning our forwards get crappy delivery and our backs get swamped by clean delivery and volume. If this continues Vossy's job is in jeopardy and the progress we have made recently is for naught. I rate each and every one of our regular mids and think that the twos contain more than a few future guns, but until they start getting their knees dirty and making the ball their overriding priority, we can kiss 2013 goodbye.

And if we aren't especially careful we will head backwards - and I shouldn't need to point out that we've been in the finals once in nine years...

Vossy has one way to keep his job. Getting a rocket up the midfield from the first quarter and making the opponent worry about us for a change.

For 15 minutes in the first I wondered just why I let myself get so involved and worked up by this footy club so much. This has happened maybe 5 times in 20 years. This shit must stop.

 

[mpal6]

Some of the posters on here need to take a deep breath and realistically look at our team, i.e someone quoted that we had 8 or 9 kids with less than 25/26 games experience play today. We have the 3rd youngest list in the competition and we played a bloody good team today...one of the best, if not the best in the AFL and got beaten...sometimes reality hurts. None of us likes to see the boys get a hiding but losses like today will continue for a while yet while this team develops and we get games and experience into the kids.

Agree with what you have written. My gripe is with coaching panel's refusal to put more players behind the ball. I don't agree with us arguing "but we dont have experienced line up today" and on the same breath saying "coaching staff wont put numbers behind ball, could be them wanting the group to stand up and compete against a more hardened outfit. it's a balance between defending and teaching the team to impose themselves in the contest. else they won't learn". Ross Lyon does it, Paul Roos has done it many times.. what's so special about our group that we need to be flogged and get the living daylight beaten out of us before end of Q1.

So, when will it be a "oh crap, we're getting flogged, we better defend and stop the bleeding"... 5 goals ? 10 goals ? 100 points+ ? what's the threshold at which point there will be a move made to flood the backline and support our defenders. Ball is predominantly in the defensive 50, why not put more players there.

If I come from the other side of the argument, stemming the scoring rate will actually give our inexperienced squad a chance, when that momentum change eventually happens at some point in the game. Why would we rather lose the game in Q1. If Players are not doing anything in terms of winning their respective positions why can't coaching panel throw a hail mary and send the whole squad to our defensive 50 as a punishment. Why can't have a set play with whole 18 positioned from HBF to FB. Don't tell me we can't plan for this.. I can show you three Q1s this year where our defenders were getting pounded with Inside 50s and forward line barely saw the ball.

 

[Last of the Roys]

Agree with what you have written. My gripe is with coaching panel's refusal to put more players behind the ball. I don't agree with us arguing "but we dont have experienced line up today" and on the same breath saying "coaching staff wont put numbers behind ball, could be them wanting the group to stand up and compete against a more hardened outfit. it's a balance between defending and teaching the team to impose themselves in the contest. else they won't learn". Ross Lyon does it, Paul Roos has done it many times.. what's so special about our group that we need to be flogged and get the living daylight beaten out of us before end of Q1.

So, when will it be a "oh crap, we're getting flogged, we better defend and stop the bleeding"... 5 goals ? 10 goals ? 100 points+ ? what's the threshold at which point there will be a move made to flood the backline and support our defenders. Ball is predominantly in the defensive 50, why not put more players there.

If I come from the other side of the argument, stemming the scoring rate will actually give our inexperienced squad a chance, when that momentum change eventually happens at some point in the game. Why would we rather lose the game in Q1. If Players are not doing anything in terms of winning their respective positions why can't coaching panel throw a hail mary and send the whole squad to our defensive 50 as a punishment. Why can't have a set play with whole 18 positioned from HBF to FB. Don't tell me we can't plan for this.. I can show you three Q1s this year where our defenders were getting pounded with Inside 50s and forward line barely saw the ball.

I agree with what you are getting at. It was my argument on another thread about our game plan.

OK if you want to play so many inexperienced players - at least give them a chance of winning / being competitive. The Saints / Scott Watters did that well with a very inexperienced team (possibily less experienced than us) in their past two games against Sydney and Collingwood. They didn't win, but they had a good crack at it.

They set up with an open forward line, with lots of numbers behind the ball.