Most grand finals are won on the basis of manic pressure. The side that realises this usually wins. (Think of us in 2010 - in my posts then, I called it intensity) Collingwood has been working on this as its methodology in recent times but has not gelled it for a number of reasons. I agree that we are not far off what is required.
To succeed next year, one thing that will be required is that the fans get off the backs of players like Mayne who do their utmost to do what they are asked to do. Mayne did not come to us to be a high possession player, but to provide forward pressure. He did as he was asked, but missed some crucial goals that he should have kicked. On that failure, he was scapegoated for the team's more general failures. He was not the only one responsible.
Off topic, but sort of connected, we shouldn't be too critical of innovative tactics when they fall down in execution, provided they provide the prospect of achieving their objects. I am thinking particularly of the slow switch tactic that we used successfully against Sydney, but unsuccessfully against Port. It was designed to draw out and break up the pattern of team defences and allow a clean forward entry. I believe that the failing against Port was one of our on field leadership to change up to attack at the right moment. ( A difficult judgement) The tactic, although ugly, seems to be quite promising as a way of clearing some space up forward. It pressures our footskills and decision making, but it has an object. Against Port, the forwards did not make their dummy leads with enough venom to make the Port backs follow them, and so the openings did not occur before the Port shut down men forced a poor kick.
And we are back at the crucial role of intensity.