Review Views and Reviews v Carlton

[Grimreepah]

Wonder if there's any history between those two from back in Tassie? Didn't look to be any love lost.

I thought that at the time.

Robinson started it and he finished off 2nd best. Lesson learned.

 

[dlanod]

1st time poster long time reader

anyhow, only saw the game on Tv so its not always esay to pick up, BUT pretty sure that polks had that defensive foward role on B Gibbs, POlks only had one tackle and 12 touches and pretty sure no shots on goal, While Gibbs had 30 odd touches set up there play really well and had 2 cracks on goal.

If you are going to play that role as a defensive foward you need to either be able to impact the scoreboard or Total blanket the opposition player, so he has no impact. OR both.

A couple of weeks ago V the the WCE Hurn and waters had blinders because they could just control play so well From back there, I Think polks should have a spell in the ressies But unsure who should replace him to play that role

When your son is saying you should be dropped...

 

[Baby_Jenks]

Pffft. I think you're giving Robinson a bit too much credit there. He's got a brick for a head both mentally and physically.

 

[Tairy Greene]

Was at the Sponsors function earlier today and got a quick chat with Browny, the thing that stood out to me was when he talking about the i50's. He mentioned they say 50% of the i50 being turned into a scoring shot is considered pretty good, the fact that we had 42 i50's with 27 scoring shots (plus 4 OOB's) going at 74% is quite promising. To say all the boys thought they should have won was an understatement. They were pretty filthy about it & all of them mentioned something along the lines of "... if I'd kicked straight." but as Browny said, "It's no ****ing good if we can't kick the ****ing goals!"

 

[patfullfankezz]

Was at the Sponsors function earlier today and got a quick chat with Browny, the thing that stood out to me was when he talking about the i50's. He mentioned they say 50% of the i50 being turned into a scoring shot is considered pretty good, the fact that we had 42 i50's with 27 scoring shots (plus 4 OOB's) going at 74% is quite promising. To say all the boys thought they should have won was an understatement. They were pretty filthy about it & all of them mentioned something along the lines of "... if I'd kicked straight." but as Browny said, "It's no ******* good if we can't kick the ******* goals!"

PLEASE tell me Joelly has a Victorian sponsor. I'll cry if he doesn't.

It all boils back to bad kicking being bad football. I hope the fact that they all know where things went wrong means they know how to fix it for next weekend!

 

[Toffee Lion]

Think Polks and Banfield really need to go if we're serious about developing a premiership team.

So many players have passed them.

Not surprised by Beams' quarter at all either, He is a gun and is in our best 22.

 

[BrisbaneLion9636]

Think Polks and Banfield really need to go if we're serious about developing a premiership team.

So many players have passed them.

Not surprised by Beams' quarter at all either, He is a gun and is in our best 22.

Agree, not having any impact at all for a couple of senior players relative to the team.
For a pretty new player like Beams to come in and dominate and show them how it's done, don't get how Polkinghorne or Banfield's still in the team. Anyway, since Banfield was named sub, he'll most likely be out next week. Polkinghorne might get a defensive job on a Crows forward again, ah well

 

[Sanchez365]

Agree, not having any impact at all for a couple of senior players relative to the team.
For a pretty new player like Beams to come in and dominate and show them how it's done, don't get how Polkinghorne or Banfield's still in the team. Anyway, since Banfield was named sub, he'll most likely be out next week. Polkinghorne might get a defensive job on a Crows forward again, ah well

Would rather see Banfield play a defensive role then Polks if one of them is to do that job. If there is one thing you can count on, it is Banfield's relentless chasing and tackling, Polks just doesn't have the pace to do that.

 

[Toffee Lion]

Would rather see Banfield play a defensive role then Polks if one of them is to do that job. If there is one thing you can count on, it is Banfield's relentless chasing and tackling, Polks just doesn't have the pace to do that.

The only thing Polks has is the photos.

 

[AFLQLD]

Perhaps Beams will finish out the season now. It is possible that the plan was to have him start and finish the season in the seniors and develop in reserves during the middle of the season. Just a theory and no crazier than any others.

Beams would add a lot to the team and make the midfield far more threatening.

This season has been a learning experience in terms of knowing who is up to it and who isn't. Bit by bit, game by game we have learnt who belongs. People like Golby, Green, Harwood and Zorko should start to make their home more or less permanently in the senior side from here on (Zorko certainly has already.) A few more games and Lisle might be added to the list. Beams seems to be another one to add.

Game by game the quality is being defined and the team assembled - perhaps that has been a big part of the season's plan. Perhaps the idea with players like Polks and Banfield was to give them plenty of opportunity to know one way or the other whether they are keepers. The potential has been there but perhaps it is not to be for those two.

We are still short of the 28-30 players of a suitable standard we really needed but the group has grown this year.

2013 is shaping up as a more critical year than 2011 or 2012. Last season and this, we have had to find the core of a team. Next season, the team needs to play games like last night's and win them. We don't have to win every game but we do need to win the genuinely winnable ones next year.

2011 - find five or six to build a team around, and as a team fight out every game even if we lose most.
2012 - find another five or six to add to the group, and as a team begin to show patches of real threat in games.
2013 - find five or six more and build a winning culture, and as a team regularly have high quality quarters of football. Start expecting to win most games.
2014 - find five or six more AFL standard players and expect to win every game. We won't but should go in expecting to because high standards are expected. Be challenging every team.
2015 - find the final five or six. Be a feared team and challenge for the flag.

Pretty straightforward really.

 

[iBeng]

That Tom Redden played pretty good to.

 

[karix]

1st time poster long time reader

anyhow, only saw the game on Tv so its not always esay to pick up, BUT pretty sure that polks had that defensive foward role on B Gibbs, POlks only had one tackle and 12 touches and pretty sure no shots on goal, While Gibbs had 30 odd touches set up there play really well and had 2 cracks on goal.

If you are going to play that role as a defensive foward you need to either be able to impact the scoreboard or Total blanket the opposition player, so he has no impact. OR both.

A couple of weeks ago V the the WCE Hurn and waters had blinders because they could just control play so well From back there, I Think polks should have a spell in the ressies But unsure who should replace him to play that role

Welcome to the party s.o.p... I agree with this analysis completely. Polks was meant to be defensive this week and last week and just either wasn't up to the task, didn't understand the task or wasn't interested in the task he'd been given.

 

[son of polks]

Welcome to the party s.o.p... I agree with this analysis completely. Polks was meant to be defensive this week and last week and just either wasn't up to the task, didn't understand the task or wasn't interested in the task he'd been given.

besides from THAT game V WCE at the gabba where he kicked 3 goals he hasnt be able to impact the scoreboard often enough,

 

[josephs_79]

Not going to repeat a lot of what has already been said here but I need to ask\mention something that has absolutely annoyed me all season as well as over the last few years. I am sure Brisbane aren't the only ones but noticed them do it more often than not.

Why the hell do they act like shepards coralling a sheep back to the herd when they are one on one with a player in possesion of the ball and give him 30 secs to a 1 min to compose himself and look for options and not pressure him and cause a turn over?

I saw Carlton do it when we had possesion, they wouldn't stand 2 - 5 meters off just coralling the person into a corner. They would get in and put some pressure on the player which would turn it over. Yet our players get to about 2 meters out and is like an invisble forcefield exists around the player which they can't penetrate.

Am I the only one thinking or seeing this or is it something that other people agree with our boys doing? To me I can't understand why as it enforces no pressure allowing the opposition the time and space to work out what they are going to do.

I can't remember exactly when in the match but in the opening 5 mins I think it happened and a few times later in the match.

 

[Caiphus]

Not going to repeat a lot of what has already been said here but I need to ask\mention something that has absolutely annoyed me all season as well as over the last few years. I am sure Brisbane aren't the only ones but noticed them do it more often than not.

Why the hell do they act like shepards coralling a sheep back to the herd when they are one on one with a player in possesion of the ball and give him 30 secs to a 1 min to compose himself and look for options and not pressure him and cause a turn over?

I saw Carlton do it when we had possesion, they wouldn't stand 2 - 5 meters off just coralling the person into a corner. They would get in and put some pressure on the player which would turn it over. Yet our players get to about 2 meters out and is like an invisble forcefield exists around the player which they can't penetrate.

Am I the only one thinking or seeing this or is it something that other people agree with our boys doing? To me I can't understand why as it enforces no pressure allowing the opposition the time and space to work out what they are going to do.

I can't remember exactly when in the match but in the opening 5 mins I think it happened and a few times later in the match.

I'm pretty sure that is part of the zone defense, we corral there players to attempt to slow down the play to let our zone get into position. A missed tackle or sidestep in a low danger part of the field allows them to run through the zone and create an overlap; they can gain 15-20m to roost the ball over the zone and then we are completely vulnerable.

It's unattractive footy to watch though, I agree, regardless of the tactical benefits.

 

[josephs_79]

Ok wasn't sure. It sure is ugly but also leaves us vulnerable as it may give time for the zone to get back but at the same time allows Carlton (for sake of discussion) time to get their players free.

Zone I have never enjoyed... always preferred the one on one possesions as we seem to always get beat in this zone play.

Thanks for the info though explains a bit!!

 

[Haso]

I noticed after the Richmond game that the media were quick to jump on the "Lions mauled without star Simon Black" bus, but this week the "Lions still mauled even with star Simon Black" bus remains vacant.

 

[Skoob]

Not going to repeat a lot of what has already been said here but I need to ask\mention something that has absolutely annoyed me all season as well as over the last few years. I am sure Brisbane aren't the only ones but noticed them do it more often than not.

Why the hell do they act like shepards coralling a sheep back to the herd when they are one on one with a player in possesion of the ball and give him 30 secs to a 1 min to compose himself and look for options and not pressure him and cause a turn over?

I saw Carlton do it when we had possesion, they wouldn't stand 2 - 5 meters off just coralling the person into a corner. They would get in and put some pressure on the player which would turn it over. Yet our players get to about 2 meters out and is like an invisble forcefield exists around the player which they can't penetrate.

Am I the only one thinking or seeing this or is it something that other people agree with our boys doing? To me I can't understand why as it enforces no pressure allowing the opposition the time and space to work out what they are going to do.

I can't remember exactly when in the match but in the opening 5 mins I think it happened and a few times later in the match.

This^. Exactly this. My pet hate.
A couple of times we "tracked" the ball carrier up to 25 metres guarding them from going sideways..
I would couple with this the number of times we can't make it to a contest (uncontested mark) so expecting our opponant to mark, just stop and put our arms out. Often I have seen the opposition spill a mark and have plenty of time to go and gather. If only we kept running at the man we could contest the loose ball.
I get the zone thing and the danger of missing a tackle but I think the reward for that risk outweighs the non competing.
Same can be said for standing the mark. When the umpire calls play on, I wish we would. If the bloke with the ball hasn't found a target when called, the chances are there isn't one. I want more applied pressure.
I reckon the reason West Coast won on Friday was exactly this stuff. Geelong were better in general play but W/C rarely allowed them a loose man. Nearly every time the Cats got the ball, particularly in WC F50, they were manned up. Pressure, on the kicker and the carrier.

 

[Quigley]

Lester - I got asked on the weekend by a scout for another team how Lester was going and I basically said okay but nothing spectacular and I still didn't understand how he was being developed. This scout said he had really liked Lester as a junior and thought that he would develop quietly and without fanfare or a lot of notice but by the time he was 25 other supporters would be asking when he became a really good player. lets hope so. Atm he still offers us nothing in the clearances and I cannot understand why he is in there as much as he is. What he does do though is get around the ground pretty well and position himself to receive. His kicking is a little hit and miss.

Green - was his best full game for us I thought. His engine has been the question but he ran the game out nicely playing a role where it is not easy to influence the play. He had 17 possessions and 5 shots on goal. He attacked the ball at pace all night and got to position to influence the play really nicely. Much cleaner and just a much smarter footballer than Banfield.

Banfield - just has no confidence atm and apart from his chase he is having no influence on the game. Has to go back to the ressies.

Polkinghorne - what role is he actually playing? I seriously have no idea. I had thought he was a defensive midfielder but he didn't seem to be matching up much on anyone and he certainly was not winning the ball much at all. I see him as the one keeping Beams out of the team and anyone who watched the match would have to question why Polks is the preferred player.

Beams - only came on in the last but finished with 9 touches and 2 goals in a great cameo. Showed good football IQ and played at pace. Got a chance through the middle and showed he can mix it in there at AFL level. Surely he must run out the season there.

Rocky - must be carrying. Limited TOG and just is not getting around the ground like ususally does. He had a solid first half but was nowhere in the second having little or no impact.

Hanley - another who started the game strongly with a good two way game but dropped off in the second half. He matched up on whichever speed merchant was hot for Carlton and was beated quite a lot. Difficult game for him.

Harwood - had an excellent first half but was largely unsighted after half time. Strong in his match ups and in the first half did a really nice job going forward. Needs to run the game out better.

Yeo - looking bigger every week. Solid game I thought and I was a bit surprised he only had 11 disposals. I thought he got more than that. Skills look a lot better than they were last year.

Wrigley - on the other hand I thought would have had less than the 17 he managed to pick up. Often innocuous he just goes about business and showed good composure with the ball. I did expect him to be a bit more damaging with the ball but he was not terrible. Not sure who his match up was.

Hudson - is wearing down. Competed but did not really give much in the way of service to his midfield nor did he contribute much around the ground.

Rich - did not really have his kicking boots on. Was getting plenty of attention and it affected his game.

Redden - lead our possession winners with 27 and was reasonable with it. He was probably our best but it would not have been one of his best games.

Bewick - got out on the lead very nicely and clunked quite a few marks. He was dangerous up forward and it was certainly the best performance I have seen from him. It would have been nice though if he had finished his hard work with better kicking both at goal and around the ground.

Zorko - got in and tried hard but it was not his best game. He finished with only 14 possessions and 4 measly tackles. Both well down on his average. He is getting more involved in the middle of the ground but I would also like to see him attack the ball a bit more up forward at the drop of the ball. He is a smart footballer and should be good in that role.

Lisle - in a straight line he did okay taking quite a few marks and covering some ground. Having said that he is slow with the turning circle of a bus. I saw some mention of playing him down back rather than up forward and I think this would be a mistake. Slow and poor agility do not a backman make. Up forward I could probably live with him if his kicking was okay but it quite simply is not anywhere near good enough to warrant AFL games. Unless he can improve his kicking he will not have any kind of long term AFL career.

Black - little impact. The end is nigh.

Brown - tried hard but things did not go his way much.

Patfull - I have been pretty harsh on Patfull the last little while but he was pretty good on the weekend. he battled hard and won or split the points on most occasions.

Raines - limited Murphy's impact very well. Did not get much of it himself though.

Merrett - apart from one ambitious left foot kick that went to the Carlton player I was really impressed with his kicking in this game and over the season in general. He is really confident with the ball and is hitting the right targets almost without fail. If nothing else the time in teh forward line seems to have been a godsend for his disposal skills.

 

[patfullfankezz]

A little harsh Quigley? You were almost the anti-pfk

If we can keep the momentum going from that last quarter and not get bogged down in the insignificant little fact that we lost, I think the crows might have something to worry about. They didn't put Freo away convincingly enough for me.

 

[HPLion]

Made my way to Melbourne for this match and found Etihad a teriffic viewing stadium. I was pleasantly surprised to see a good spread of Lions supporters......didn't expect to see as many. Also surprised at how few Carlton supporters were there. It is not only Brisbane that sees support fall away when the team is not doing well or in Carlton's case not meeting expectations (they have spent a few years telling evryone how good they are after all!!).

The match was lost on our early poor conversion and I noted that on at least five occasions a simple set shot miss from us was converted into a goal from the kick-in by Carlton.

I firmly belive that Carlton would have folded had we put some decent scoreboard pressure on them when we had the chance.

 

[Tairy Greene]

Made my way to Melbourne for this match and found Etihad a teriffic viewing stadium. I was pleasantly surprised to see a good spread of Lions supporters......didn't expect to see as many. Also surprised at how few Carlton supporters were there. It is not only Brisbane that sees support fall away when the team is not doing well or in Carlton's case not meeting expectations (they have spent a few years telling evryone how good they are after all!!).

The match was lost on our early poor conversion and I noted that on at least five occasions a simple set shot miss from us was converted into a goal from the kick-in by Carlton.

I firmly belive that Carlton would have folded had we put some decent scoreboard pressure on them when we had the chance.

Pretty much summed up my views on everything here HP. I mentioned on twitter that there was only 26,000 at this game & I would say at least a quarter were Lions fans. Some Big 4 club eh?

 

[karix]

I firmly belive that Carlton would have folded had we put some decent scoreboard pressure on them when we had the chance.

It's more than that. Not only would turning some of those behind into goals have hurt them on the scoreboard, giving us a lift and deflating Carlton players.

But they often went coast to coast after we missed. So you can look at about 5 of our behinds as being double whammy's not only did we miss, but it gave them a goal within a minute or two afterwards - supremely disheartening for a young side.

Kicking straight would've reduced their scoring shots by at least 5 I reckon. Which is part of what makes it a weird game to think about, because a 6 goal difference is more like a 3 or 4 goal difference when you consider that they were scoring from their kick-in, which we could've denied them by hitting the big sticks.

 

[WhiteLionFeva]

I was out to dinner on Sat and had to suffer rythmic gymnastics while trying to get scores on the phone. Then I stuffed up my times on Sunday and missed the player sponsor function. Not sure about them but this old body is tired after a long season. Bring on the draft...

 

[Sanchez365]

It's more than that. Not only would turning some of those behind into goals have hurt them on the scoreboard, giving us a lift and deflating Carlton players.

But they often went coast to coast after we missed. So you can look at about 5 of our behinds as being double whammy's not only did we miss, but it gave them a goal within a minute or two afterwards - supremely disheartening for a young side.

Kicking straight would've reduced their scoring shots by at least 5 I reckon. Which is part of what makes it a weird game to think about, because a 6 goal difference is more like a 3 or 4 goal difference when you consider that they were scoring from their kick-in, which we could've denied them by hitting the big sticks.

As was pointed out by the commentators, Carlton also only really start to play football when they get on top. That's certainly how it looked to be as well.