Analysis Where's our side at? Are we not playing to our potential?

[jackess]

From Robbo's dislikes:

10. BRISBANE: Have been in a record 12 times in the dislikes and I promise it will be the last time in season 2015. Something’s not right up there and I’m not talking about players sooking about the standards Tom Rockliff wants to put in place. Injuries have hurt, but they have given up in too many games this year. As well as trying to find a key defenders and forwards, the Lions need to find resilience in the off-season.

Can't say I disagree with him...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This might be jumping to conclusions but I've been worried for a while about all the excuses and negative talk from Leppa and others having an effect on the players.

You have to wonder how the kids feel coming up against the reigning premiers with the message coming from the club that we won't be a good team for a couple of more seasons.

 

[Hollow Knight]

This might be jumping to conclusions but I've been worried for a while about all the excuses and negative talk from Leppa and others having an effect on the players.

You have to wonder how the kids feel coming up against the reigning premiers with the message coming from the club that we won't be a good team for a couple of more seasons.

Started the game pretty well.

 

[jackess]

Started the game pretty well.

Bu then they kick a couple of quick goals and end up kicking 14 of the next 15. We did push Freo, Sydney and the Crows but we've rolled over way too many times.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Bu then they kick a couple of quick goals and end up kicking 14 of the next 15. We did push Freo, Sydney and the Crows but we've rolled over way too many times.

I would be more likely to put that down to inexperience and lack of physical maturity, as well as quality of opponent, rather than public messaging.

Do we really expect Leppa to come out and say "we are as good as any team in the league". I prefer cold honesty rather than blowing warm air up my posterior.

 

[neg99]

Bu then they kick a couple of quick goals and end up kicking 14 of the next 15. We did push Freo, Sydney and the Crows but we've rolled over way too many times.

It's a tough balance either way. We haven't seemed to be able to run out 4 quarters in 2-3 years. Part of this is the youth, part is injuries (I also think we've underestimated how many have had to play through relatively minor injuries due to the major ones I.e. rich, redden and beams who all played under serious duress at stages this year) and part has to lay at the feet of Burton. Hopefully the changes in the footy club over the off season are the circuit breaker we need.

I like Leppas honesty to the media, I think it helps to build trust with the media and the general public but yes it does run the risk of creating excuses for players sooner or later.
That's another reason why I'm proud of the standard Rocky is setting which helps to balance that out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jackess]

I would be more likely to put that down to inexperience and lack of physical maturity, as well as quality of opponent, rather than public messaging.

Do we really expect Leppa to come out and say "we are as good as any team in the league". I prefer cold honesty rather than blowing warm air up my posterior.

Something, something, .... Western Bulldogs

The problem is it's our midfield that's let us down in key parts of games and they don't get to use the inexperienced excuse. I think our backline has stood up admirably given how much they've had to do and we all know about our forward line issues.

 

[Ironmonger]

From Robbo's dislikes:

10. BRISBANE: Have been in a record 12 times in the dislikes and I promise it will be the last time in season 2015. Something’s not right up there and I’m not talking about players sooking about the standards Tom Rockliff wants to put in place. Injuries have hurt, but they have given up in too many games this year. As well as trying to find a key defenders and forwards, the Lions need to find resilience in the off-season.

Can't say I disagree with him...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

More or less the way I feel.

Add up all of the things that we know about - like injuries, inexperience and list instability - and in my opinion it still doesn't add up to the consistently uncompetitive performances we're seeing. Not that Saturday's game was the worst example of that, but still.

There could be all sorts of reasons for that.

 

[Panthera]

This might be jumping to conclusions but I've been worried for a while about all the excuses and negative talk from Leppa and others having an effect on the players.

You have to wonder how the kids feel coming up against the reigning premiers with the message coming from the club that we won't be a good team for a couple of more seasons.

I'm pretty sure the players themselves know they've got a fair bit of size to put on / work to do in the next few years (and for the remainder of their careers for that matter)

Look at the bloody size difference between Andrews and his opponent (think it's Frawley) on the weekend

 

[Kevvo]

I think it's telling that on the weekend we were playing two first year kids off the rookie list.

Most teams that aren't still in the finals frame turned in more half-hearted performances than we did on the weekend. I think that all things considered we put in a fair bit of effort (won contested possession IIRC), but were just overrun by a more experienced and potent team tuning up for a grand final run.

It's speculation, but I reckon Leppa's public message will evolve as we get a bit more experienced. Even next year I'd expect to see it toughen a little, and I think that makes sense. Right now I think they're just trying to get some experience into a lot of kids at once without savaging their confidence. Supportive public messaging makes sense in that context.

More or less the way I feel.

Add up all of the things that we know about - like injuries, inexperience and list instability - and in my opinion it still doesn't add up to the consistently uncompetitive performances we're seeing. Not that Saturday's game was the worst example of that, but still.

There could be all sorts of reasons for that.

I have a lot of respect for your posting and perspective, so this isn't a facetious or rhetorical question, but are there teams you can think of who in similar circumstances have outperformed where we are? I'm wary that I tend towards blind faith, but in my recollection I can't think of any examples where a team has been comparably young and injury afflicted but have been consistently competitive through the course of a season.

 

[Voss the boss]

We have lost 10 games by over 50 points this year. We lot 9 games in 2014 over 50 points, 4 in 2013, 5 in 2012 and 4 in 2011. We have gone backwards a rate of knots.

Robbo's comments are fair enough.

 

[Ironmonger]

I have a lot of respect for your posting and perspective, so this isn't a facetious or rhetorical question, but are there teams you can think of who in similar circumstances have outperformed where we are? I'm wary that I tend towards blind faith, but in my recollection I can't think of any examples where a team has been comparably young and injury afflicted but have been consistently competitive through the course of a season.

Well, we lost twice to a younger team that has had even worse injuries in the Gold Coast Suns just this season, so there's the first example. And it certainly appears as though they're battling with a hell of a lot of off-field stuff.

'Consistently competitive' isn't the right standard, but even 'occasionally competitive' would be a big step up. Normally teams that are battling with youth and injuries can at least manage a stretch of improved performances, like we did late last year and the Suns have done to an extent late this year. The young Dogs dealt with a lot of disruption in 2013 but still finished the season well. The Giants had an injury list last year that was scarcely believable and won six games, and were certainly competitive in more games late in the season than we are right now.

Young teams battling with injury should be cut a certain amount of slack, but only a certain amount. Port Adelaide in 2012 were similarly diabolical, and probably had similar injuries and inexperience. But even so Matt Primus was still held accountable for underperformance and lost his job. That doesn't mean we have to sack Leppitsch, but we have to think beyond excuses and come up with some reasonable expectations.

The thing is, we're not actually that young. Even with injuries, the team we played on Saturday had a pretty similar age profile to the Collingwood team that thumped the Cats on Friday. And our injuries have waxed and waned while our performances have almost always been lousy.

 

[Kevvo]

We have lost 10 games by over 50 points this year. We lot 9 games in 2014 over 50 points, 4 in 2013, 5 in 2012 and 4 in 2011. We have gone backwards a rate of knots.

Robbo's comments are fair enough.

In all of those years we were playing expansion sides with a team that was far more physically mature. We're now the side bottoming out. These things go in cycles.

Robbo is just filling column inches.

'Injuries hurt' doesn't capture the half of it. The best sides in the comp look gettable if you take out 2 or 3 of their best players. We are nowhere near that, and have played without at least a couple of Rocky/Hanley/Beams all year. Add to that the number of our 50+ game types who've been sidelined and I think that is a pointlessly reductive comparison.

 

[Hollow Knight]

In a vacuum, Robbo's comments seem pretty fair. The context of The Tackle Likes & Dislikes is meant to be based on the weekend's football though.

Seems a bit strange to pot us after competing pretty well for large parts of a game against the reigning premiers. Beating the Hawks in contested footy was a pretty good step forward for our group. Was one of our least disheartening losses for the year.

Us coming in at 10 makes me think he got to 9 and was struggling for that last one. "Brisbane lost again by 10 goals... may as well give them another clip".

 

[Kevvo]

Well, we lost twice to a younger team that has had even worse injuries in the Gold Coast Suns just this season, so there's the first example. And it certainly appears as though they're battling with a hell of a lot of off-field stuff.

'Consistently competitive' isn't the right standard, but even 'occasionally competitive' would be a big step up. Normally teams that are battling with youth and injuries can at least manage a stretch of improved performances, like we did late last year and the Suns have done to an extent late this year. The young Dogs dealt with a lot of disruption in 2013 but still finished the season well. The Giants had an injury list last year that was scarcely believable and won six games, and were certainly competitive in more games late in the season than we are right now.

Young teams battling with injury should be cut a certain amount of slack, but only a certain amount. Port Adelaide in 2012 were similarly diabolical, and probably had similar injuries and inexperience. But even so Matt Primus was still held accountable for underperformance and lost his job. That doesn't mean we have to sack Leppitsch, but we have to think beyond excuses and come up with some reasonable expectations.

The thing is, we're not actually that young. Even with injuries, the team we played on Saturday had a pretty similar age profile to the Collingwood team that thumped the Cats on Friday. And our injuries have waxed and waned while our performances have almost always been lousy.

I take your point, though I do believe we've been 'occasionally' competitive. Unfortunately, we've had our better games (Adelaide, Freo, Sydney) against very good sides who've eventually run over the top of us. If we had produced those same performances against the likes of Melbourne, or not dropped 3 players mid-game against St Kilda, then I think we could easily have wound up with about a 6 win season.

From my memory of both of the Gold Coast games, we were largely competitive if not on top of them in the midfield, but their two established KPFs were scoring at will against our very, very young backline, and our very, very young forward line (McStay was our only key forward IIRC, and he is primarily a defender) struggled against May and Thompson.

GWS were ravaged by injury, but they have such a staggering abundance of talent that they were still replacing their stars with late first rounders. We don't have that luxury.
I think age across the side is a reasonable proxy, but there is a more detailed comparison to be done. Our experience is nearly totally concentrated in the midfield. That helps to a point, and probably explains why we are increasingly competitive at stoppages. This year has been our best clearance result in years if I'm not mistaken. But, for structural reasons that I believe have a lot to do with age, we find it too hard to put on scoring pressure. Even McGuane coming in has really freed up our scoring in my opinion. I think it's also fair to say that young midfielders generally find it easier to get a foothold than young KPPs, hence the generally faster rate of inclusion in sides.

Collingwood at least have a spearhead in Cloke and Ben Reid to provide some kind of solid foundation in the backline. Therefore, while we may have a similar age balance in aggregate, I'm not sure we're directly comparable.

 

[Lionheart182]

Well, we lost twice to a younger team that has had even worse injuries in the Gold Coast Suns just this season, so there's the first example. And it certainly appears as though they're battling with a hell of a lot of off-field stuff.

'Consistently competitive' isn't the right standard, but even 'occasionally competitive' would be a big step up. Normally teams that are battling with youth and injuries can at least manage a stretch of improved performances, like we did late last year and the Suns have done to an extent late this year. The young Dogs dealt with a lot of disruption in 2013 but still finished the season well. The Giants had an injury list last year that was scarcely believable and won six games, and were certainly competitive in more games late in the season than we are right now.

Young teams battling with injury should be cut a certain amount of slack, but only a certain amount. Port Adelaide in 2012 were similarly diabolical, and probably had similar injuries and inexperience. But even so Matt Primus was still held accountable for underperformance and lost his job. That doesn't mean we have to sack Leppitsch, but we have to think beyond excuses and come up with some reasonable expectations.

The thing is, we're not actually that young. Even with injuries, the team we played on Saturday had a pretty similar age profile to the Collingwood team that thumped the Cats on Friday. And our injuries have waxed and waned while our performances have almost always been lousy.

Unfortunately this is spot on. We had had our injury woes for sure but I am much more concerned with the mechanical nature we take to games. One of the commentators mentioned on the weekend one of our players (Rockliff?) looked like they were 'fighting their natural instincts' when playing which I think is spot on.

I'm just a couch commentator but to me it looks like we are hell bent on implementing a system which has taken away the players natural flair to some extent. I've said it before but the slow-ball, chip around game plan we revert to benefits nobody. Time will tell if this reliance on extreme structure is positive or not, I guess.

 

[Ironmonger]

I'm not sure we're directly comparable.

I'm just going to pick that out, because I think it encapsulates your approach.

No one is directly comparable. Gold Coast and Collingwood might have better KPF options (although Cloke didn't play on Friday), and GWS might have more first-rounders, but every side has differences. Few sides get three quality experienced recruits in one off-season either, but we did and we haven't capitalised on that as much as we hoped.

I hesitate to use the Dogs as an example, because they're doing better than anyone could have imagined and it's an impossible standard, but they also have an extremely young forwardline and have partially corrected that by making sure they move the ball quickly and directly forward. I can't pick out any way in which we've adapted to that serious weakness, apart possibly from playing some quite negative footy at times.

On our better performances coming against better teams, I think you have the causation around the wrong way; those teams played poorly because they were playing against poor opposition.

 

[WhiteLionFeva]

We have started both of our last games like a house on fire but haven't been able to sustain it much beyond quarter time. My concern is that even if these guys gain experience and we pluck a key forward or two, is our frenetic game style sustainable for an entire game? It's a high possession/energy game from what I can tell and the Bulldogs seem to be the other team that plays a similar style but for longer and more effectively. Which makes me think the Bulldogs game plan might struggle when the real heat is on in finals. I hope not though because they are the team that is easiest to watch at the moment.

 

[jackess]

We have started both of our last games like a house on fire but haven't been able to sustain it much beyond quarter time. My concern is that even if these guys gain experience and we pluck a key forward or two, is our frenetic game style sustainable for an entire game? It's a high possession/energy game from what I can tell and the Bulldogs seem to be the other team that plays a similar style but for longer and more effectively. Which makes me think the Bulldogs game plan might struggle when the real heat is on in finals. I hope not though because they are the team that is easiest to watch at the moment.

You don't play the frenetic style all match. It's just when you turn it over at half back you have to move it quickly so you don't allow the opposition time to get numbers behind the play.

 

[Kevvo]

I'm just going to pick that out, because I think it encapsulates your approach.

No one is directly comparable. Gold Coast and Collingwood might have better KPF options (although Cloke didn't play on Friday), and GWS might have more first-rounders, but every side has differences. Few sides get three quality experienced recruits in one off-season either, but we did and we haven't capitalised on that as much as we hoped.

I hesitate to use the Dogs as an example, because they're doing better than anyone could have imagined and it's an impossible standard, but they also have an extremely young forwardline and have partially corrected that by making sure they move the ball quickly and directly forward. I can't pick out any way in which we've adapted to that serious weakness, apart possibly from playing some quite negative footy at times.

On our better performances coming against better teams, I think you have the causation around the wrong way; those teams played poorly because they were playing against poor opposition.

You're right: no-one is directly comparable. I should have put my point by saying that those inevitable differences between sides, in my opinion, have been pretty important.

I agree that we are to an extent the makers of our own problems in the short term. We definitely haven't tried to play a fast, direct style like the Bulldogs. Personally, I think that style can work for a while and it is fun to watch, but it won't ever beat the best teams consistently. For me, Port are archetypes of a similar plan.

Last year we did something similar (to admittedly far lesser success). We looked stagnant early in the season, but shifted to a more aggressive running game that picked us up some wins. I also remember us running into disciplined defensive sides, and that plan coming unraveled.

What I believe, or hope, is that we have stuck to the plan in order to work out how to shift between slow, controlled movement and faster, more aggressive running. I've only seen it in patches, but I think that is an important foundation for enduring success, as opposed to a quick rise up the ladder. In those circumstances, I think our age profile in the forward half have been especially problematic, and the injuries haven't helped. It's an open question whether it is doing more harm than good, or whether that's even what we're doing, but I see it more as delaying short term gratification for long term gain. And, getting back to the point under discussion, I think the injuries and experience issues have made that period of education pretty grueling to watch.

On the last point you make, I think the truth is somewhere between the two. Those sides certainly weren't at peak form, but I think you aren't giving the Lions enough credit either.

 

[neg99]

In a vacuum, Robbo's comments seem pretty fair. The context of The Tackle Likes & Dislikes is meant to be based on the weekend's football though.

Seems a bit strange to pot us after competing pretty well for large parts of a game against the reigning premiers. Beating the Hawks in contested footy was a pretty good step forward for our group. Was one of our least disheartening losses for the year.

Us coming in at 10 makes me think he got to 9 and was struggling for that last one. "Brisbane lost again by 10 goals... may as well give them another clip".

I think it was also a way for him to weigh in on the Barrett nonsense given he's stayed pretty clear of it, even on 360 last week. Despite the competitive start we wilted again pretty quickly and easily (including giving up more goals to the Hawks in a qtr than any other team this year). I think we deserved the clip, I'm just happy it was mildly constructive and not just rumour mongering.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[neg99]

You're right: no-one is directly comparable. I should have put my point by saying that those inevitable differences between sides, in my opinion, have been pretty important.

I agree that we are to an extent the makers of our own problems in the short term. We definitely haven't tried to play a fast, direct style like the Bulldogs. Personally, I think that style can work for a while and it is fun to watch, but it won't ever beat the best teams consistently. For me, Port are archetypes of a similar plan.

Last year we did something similar (to admittedly far lesser success). We looked stagnant early in the season, but shifted to a more aggressive running game that picked us up some wins. I also remember us running into disciplined defensive sides, and that plan coming unraveled.

What I believe, or hope, is that we have stuck to the plan in order to work out how to shift between slow, controlled movement and faster, more aggressive running. I've only seen it in patches, but I think that is an important foundation for enduring success, as opposed to a quick rise up the ladder. In those circumstances, I think our age profile in the forward half have been especially problematic, and the injuries haven't helped. It's an open question whether it is doing more harm than good, or whether that's even what we're doing, but I see it more as delaying short term gratification for long term gain. And, getting back to the point under discussion, I think the injuries and experience issues have made that period of education pretty grueling to watch.

On the last point you make, I think the truth is somewhere between the two. Those sides certainly weren't at peak form, but I think you aren't giving the Lions enough credit either.

My view is that Leppa is trying to teach us to play both ways. He's willing to take the pain of some losses to build structures and confidence in a plan that basically says take the game on when that's in front of you but learn to slow down and control the ball to wrestle momentum from an opposition. It's a hybrid of the Port/Doggies helter skelter style and the Hawks controlled elite kicking/mark game. Looking at our list and our capabilities alongside evidence of successful game plans I think that's the perfect balance for us. Use guys like Rich who are elite kicks to pinpoint that slingshot pass but still allow the Paparone/Clark etc of the world to hit a short target and slow things up. Then inject Zorks/Squizzy further up the field when the time is right.

Basically I think Leppa decided to treat this year as a learning year (not sure if it was pre season or part way through) where he's willing to wear some big losses as long as the guys learn that plan and get to a stage where he's confident that after this next preseason they'll be capable of making their own decisions about when to switch back and forth.

I think we all love it when the guys take the game on and move quickly but as Port has shown this year that's not sustainable and I think would struggle to hold up under finals intensity.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[theteamtobeat]

I take your point, though I do believe we've been 'occasionally' competitive. Unfortunately, we've had our better games (Adelaide, Freo, Sydney) against very good sides who've eventually run over the top of us. If we had produced those same performances against the likes of Melbourne, or not dropped 3 players mid-game against St Kilda, then I think we could easily have wound up with about a 6 win season.

From my memory of both of the Gold Coast games, we were largely competitive if not on top of them in the midfield, but their two established KPFs were scoring at will against our very, very young backline, and our very, very young forward line (McStay was our only key forward IIRC, and he is primarily a defender) struggled against May and Thompson.

GWS were ravaged by injury, but they have such a staggering abundance of talent that they were still replacing their stars with late first rounders. We don't have that luxury.
I think age across the side is a reasonable proxy, but there is a more detailed comparison to be done. Our experience is nearly totally concentrated in the midfield. That helps to a point, and probably explains why we are increasingly competitive at stoppages. This year has been our best clearance result in years if I'm not mistaken. But, for structural reasons that I believe have a lot to do with age, we find it too hard to put on scoring pressure. Even McGuane coming in has really freed up our scoring in my opinion. I think it's also fair to say that young midfielders generally find it easier to get a foothold than young KPPs, hence the generally faster rate of inclusion in sides.

Collingwood at least have a spearhead in Cloke and Ben Reid to provide some kind of solid foundation in the backline. Therefore, while we may have a similar age balance in aggregate, I'm not sure we're directly comparable.

Not to mention we lost Patful.

 

[jackess]

I take your point, though I do believe we've been 'occasionally' competitive. Unfortunately, we've had our better games (Adelaide, Freo, Sydney) against very good sides who've eventually run over the top of us. If we had produced those same performances against the likes of Melbourne, or not dropped 3 players mid-game against St Kilda, then I think we could easily have wound up with about a 6 win season.

From my memory of both of the Gold Coast games, we were largely competitive if not on top of them in the midfield, but their two established KPFs were scoring at will against our very, very young backline, and our very, very young forward line (McStay was our only key forward IIRC, and he is primarily a defender) struggled against May and Thompson.

GWS were ravaged by injury, but they have such a staggering abundance of talent that they were still replacing their stars with late first rounders. We don't have that luxury.
I think age across the side is a reasonable proxy, but there is a more detailed comparison to be done. Our experience is nearly totally concentrated in the midfield. That helps to a point, and probably explains why we are increasingly competitive at stoppages. This year has been our best clearance result in years if I'm not mistaken. But, for structural reasons that I believe have a lot to do with age, we find it too hard to put on scoring pressure. Even McGuane coming in has really freed up our scoring in my opinion. I think it's also fair to say that young midfielders generally find it easier to get a foothold than young KPPs, hence the generally faster rate of inclusion in sides.

Collingwood at least have a spearhead in Cloke and Ben Reid to provide some kind of solid foundation in the backline. Therefore, while we may have a similar age balance in aggregate, I'm not sure we're directly comparable.

We lost by over 10 goals in the first one after May knocked Rocky out.

 

[Kevvo]

We lost by over 10 goals in the first one after May knocked Rocky out.

You highlighted the first half of a sentence and took it out of context.

From my memory of both of the Gold Coast games, we were largely competitive if not on top of them in the midfield, but their two established KPFs were scoring at will against our very, very young backline, and our very, very young forward line (McStay was our only key forward IIRC, and he is primarily a defender) struggled against May and Thompson.
Read more at http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/media-alert.1062470/page-116#4diocE4AbEftGCcH.99

That is pretty much the central point of the whole post. Our mids are experienced and generally fairly competitive, but we struggle to score and probably concede in big batches too easily.

In that game, we had very similar disposal (lost 394-384) and clearance numbers (44-40), won hit-outs (50-30) and went inside 50 as many times (53 each). Arguably, that suggests a reasonable midfield contest.

They scored much more freely.

 

[Panthera]

We have lost 10 games by over 50 points this year. We lot 9 games in 2014 over 50 points, 4 in 2013, 5 in 2012 and 4 in 2011. We have gone backwards a rate of knots.

Robbo's comments are fair enough.

Our loss margins have improved, as have our quarters won - these are two signs that suggest there is light at the end of the tunnel.

2014: Won only 21 quarters, with a loss average of 56.4pts
2015: Won 26 quarters to date, with a loss average of 48.2pts (with 4 more losses too).

And don't forget, there have been some terrific mini-displays against some good opposition (all after round 7) in:

1. 37pt win vs Port Adelaide (home)
2. 5 goals up v Adelaide (home) at 3/4 time (then got swamped by the better team).
3. Led Fremantle deep into the 3rd quarter (away)
4. A goal down v Sydney at 3/4 time (home)
5. Won the 1st quarter vs Adelaide, then got smacked (away)
6. Same as above vs Hawthorn on the weekend.

In comparison, we didn't win a quarter against the same teams in 2014

These are great little wins that Leppa has been talking about and I didn't see them against the top echelon in 2014.

You need to win about 45 quarters to play finals these days. We've actually won 9 first quarters (the same as Richmond and more than Adelaide)...but as young teams do, we fall away as the game progresses.