Review Grand Final, 2023 - Collingwood vs. Brisbane Lions

[Happy_Neale]

I still enjoyed the week, even though we lost.

Same. Great buzz around the place. Call it blasphemous but I’m glad we played against a big club as well.

 

[CarterS]

Good mate of mine is a big Sydney supporter, went down the year before, game over half way through the first quarter. Now that would be a flat day.

 

[Viceregal]

Good mate of mine is a big Sydney supporter, went down the year before, game over half way through the first quarter. Now that would be a flat day.

nods we had a lot of games like that with Leppa but doing it during the regular season when you know you suck is different from doing it in person on GF day!

 

[The Flying Belgian]

nods we had a lot of games like that with Leppa but doing it during the regular season when you know you suck is different from doing it in person on GF day!

I know everyone has a different emotional make-up, but anyone with a shred of rationality could've had what happened as a possibility. I still maintain if we'd played close at or near our best we'd have taken the day - I'm not convinced Collingwood weren't far off their best. But they played better on the day and deserved it.

I haven't watched a replay and probably won't ever, so I envy Pies supporters having that luxury to nourish them through the off-season.

 

[Viceregal]

I know everyone has a different emotional make-up, but anyone with a shred of rationality could've had what happened as a possibility. I still maintain if we'd played close at or near our best we'd have taken the day - I'm not convinced Collingwood weren't far off their best. But they played better on the day and deserved it.

I haven't watched a replay and probably won't ever, so I envy Pies supporters having that luxury to nourish them through the off-season.

Sorry I was comparing how we felt during Leppa death games where we knew it was over by quarter time to how the Sydney surporters felt knowing the same thing during a GF. Not the thread topic but related to the post I quoted (they were comparing us losing in a hard fought tussle over them rolling over with hardly a whimper)

 

[Lace Out]

May have been mentioned but Dev Rob played with a broken wrist..going in for surgery

 

[briztoon]

May have been mentioned but Dev Rob played with a broken wrist..going in for surgery

I’d be interested in the full list of surgeries.

Dev - wrist.
Payne - ankle.

 

[Grasshopper17]

Anything that embarrasses the AFL never happens again does it.

When Bucks took off the NS as soon as it was hung around his neck it was a huge scandal at the time with NS's family saying it was a blight on the memory of the great man yadda yadda.

Bucks simply didn't want to walk back to his team with a medal when none of them were getting one.

But yeah, that will never happen again.

It did happen again. Chris Judd in 2005.

 

[Grasshopper17]

was this the walk to the g from one of the fitzory pubs?

Started at Fed Square in the end. Was great to be a part of.

 

[Grasshopper17]

To be fair though Luthor in what universe would anyone have Lester on Hill ?

Worst match up of all time.

Hill was the danger player as was flagged on here 3 or 4 times and we just didn't put enough work into it.

They waltzed it forward too easily which really helped Hill but we didn't seem to have a plan. Well maybe we did but I couldn't see what it was.

Appreciate your question is rhetorical.

I'll have a go at answering it anyway.

I guess the universe in which Lester on Hill is a suitable match up is one where every time he's targeted it's from a high, slow or under pressure kick, favouring the taller player.

That didn't happen because Collingwood spread better from contests better than we did and hence their kicks to Hill were generally unpressured, thus to his advantage.

In any event, Hill generally would not have contested too many high or slow kicks anyway... these would have been left to the likes of Mihochek or the resting ruckman.

This being the case, Lester would have been a much better match up for someone like Elliott, who is quite agile at ground level but much more potent than Hill overhead.

 

[Grasshopper17]

VicBias: is real and its in the scheduling. Be nice if you got a home grand final, or a neutral one, or if you got to play on the GF venue more than 3 times in a season. VicBias to me isn't cheating umps (though they favour the home side, and guess where it was played?), its the fact more than half the clubs are in one state (so Vics get more political clout) and in other states politicians get to buy home games for their clubs: SA bought a home round, Vic clubs have locked in home grand finals and its wrong. We won't talk about Sydney or GWS because I have opinions that border defamation.

Great post. Really respect the class and grace you and a number of your fellow supporters have shown on this thread in recent days.

A couple of things to expand on the above, which broadly I agree with you on...

I think there are required to be 50-odd games at the MCG each season. I guess that's the contractual arrangement between the AFL and the MCC. My view is while the Grand Final is always going to be held there, all 18 teams should be drawn to play 3 away games there. Obviously we recognise the likes of Collingwood, Melbourne, Richmond, Hawthorn etc play home games there... someone has to be the home team after all. But to go some way towards equity in this aspect, every club should get the same number of away games on the MCG.

By the way, I love the MCG, it's easily my favourite sporting ground in the world, so I wholeheartedly believe our players when they say they love playing there. It does come with its idiosyncracies however which its more regular tenants are undoubtedly advantaged by, even if at the margins.

The other aspect to the perceived bias was in the scheduling of the finals. Ideally Brisbane v Port would have been on the Thursday, but that would have meant either 2 games in Melbourne on the Saturday, or a Sunday final. 60,000+ for St Kilda v GWS justified not playing it under the roof. Failing that, it had to be the Saturday arvo/twilight allowing Port to fly home the same night. As it happened, GWS were advantaged over Port.

After that, the Preliminary Finals should have been flipped. Yes, I acknowledge the fact that Collingwood's ladder position would ordinarily dictate they get the Friday night game and the 8 day break for the Grand Final. However, they already had the advantage of essentially hosting the Grand Final, which as you've alluded to, very few teams get to do under the current arrangement.

I felt that an 8 day break on top of playing the Grand Final on your home ground, against a travelling team with one less day to prepare, was excessive. Particularly after Collingwood played a team in the prelim off a 6 day break, while Brisbane played a team off an 8 day break.

The whole notion of "top team plays the Friday prelim" was originally introduced as a way to benefit the top team where they were outside Victoria, like Port in 2004. I don't think at the time that advantage was ever intended, or needs, to extend to the Melbourne based clubs.

The other alternative was to play the Port v GWS on the Friday night. Yes, both clubs would have had a 6 day break but it would have been the same for both. Then, from that point on, all teams would have a 7 day break, except the Friday prelim winner earning an 8 day break.

That didn't happen however, with the AFL wanting Melbourne v Carlton on the Friday night, evidently putting $$$ ahead of a fair and equitable competition. Yet again.

Appreciate the above may sound like sour grapes. However I did raise the prospect of all of the above happening right back when the Collingwood v Melbourne QF on the Thursday was first mooted. That it all came to pass pretty much exactly as I predicted with virtually no critical analysis by the media was particularly galling, but not really surprising.



Anyway, none of the above made a lick of difference on Grand Final day. We had conditions in our favour but your guys simply handled them better. Congratulations.

 

[Grasshopper17]

Bailey's goal = GOTY.

Seen this sentiment a few times...

1. I believe it sells Ashcroft's goal so far short. We have literally never seen anything like what he did and there's a fair chance none of us ever will again in our lifetime.

2. Didn't Bailey kick basically the same goal against Port in the Qualifying Final? (Perhaps sans the smother to get the ball rolling)

Don't get me wrong it was a quite brilliant goal, as was his first. But I think the GOTY reactions are a little bit knee-jerky.

 

[Cyclops]

Look the Bailey goal was a sustained series of actions under pressure with a skilled finish. Pretty fair contender.

I like the Ashcroft because it reminded me of past greats but what special about it is the instant of kicking. It's a wonderfully timed leap then a wild everything/nothing kick that luckily went through. Dazzling yes and a fine winner but the other boy has a case.

If you like freakish the Elliot goal where he tapped it across the face, and looped the goalposts to soccer it was tasty. Shades of James "Freak" Morrissey in the 1985 reserves GF.

Not arguing the toss though, worthy winner.

 

[Grasshopper17]

Just wanted to tie my remaining thoughts together, wrap them up, put a bow on them and plunge them into this 'ere insinkerator.

I guess like a lot of us, I'm in this weird twilight zone where I am simultaneously

• super proud of the effort, in that we never, ever gave up, in the face of not really being able to get the game going our way for most of the day. And then facing a 10 point deficit with a few minutes left, other teams might have gone "ah well, not our day" and suddenly it could have become a 22 or 28 point loss. But we dug in and were perhaps a couple of moments away from pinching it. HOWEVER
• super disappointed in the performance. From about the 10 minute mark of the 3rd quarter I'd resigned myself to the fact that we were very likely going to lose. And even if we did win, if the game continued like it was going (and it did) it would have felt very hollow, because I was so disappointed with how we played, particularly after half time.

It must have become evident to the coaching group, and maybe even some of the players, at or close to half time, that we simply couldn't handle Collingwood's run. They smashed us on the spread, were able to get uncontested marks in broken play, then have the luxury of choosing whether to play on, or go back behind the mark and even then still find desired targets forward of the ball.

So we responded by basically grinding the game to a halt. WE did that, not Collingwood. We decided to do everything we could to keep the ball off Collingwood, and if they were gonna force us to give it to em, it was gonna be long down the line or via a messy stoppage contest.

As such we lost all our willingness to run, spread and create, our "dare" as Fages called it. Funny, Fages called it dare... you can't kick daring balls into the corridor if there's nobody to kick em to! By contrast, I reckon you could count the number of times Collingwood went long down the line for the whole match on one hand.

This lack of run made it look more and more like we were playing one-out football the longer the game went: our guy against one of their guys, with not much support outside congestion. Whereas they linked up so much better when the ball got out into space. This meant they got that time and space, while we got little if any.

Some of us have also touched on this:

I reckon we had control in the 2nd quarter but gave up two soft goals before half time and after that it became an arm wrestle. That coincided with us losing our nerve and not going thru the corridor which we had cut them up early. I just had this gut feel that we were never going to win a close one and unfortunately that played out. Just a numb feeling.

They started giving us the sidelines more and staying on the inside to clog up the space there too.

Sad to say but we were thoroughly outcoached today. Long down the line like that as well as your halfbacks and wings (Kiddy first half aside) being ineffectual is not how we have been playing recently. No run and no dare.

A four point lead is more like two goals when it comes to playing Collingwood and they looked in control for that last quarter and most of the game.

We have to find a use for Berry and our wings. Couldn’t see many examples of their unrewarding running toda. Collingwood just used it too well and they didn’t give us much offensively

Every time we tried to switch they were ready with numbers on the other side and we had to go down the line. Could see them running across.

Reflecting on the GF. In the first half Coleman and Zorko hit a couple kicks into the corridor and we looked on. It was almost identical to the Richmond game at the MCG last year. Coleman was on fire and every time he got his hands on the ball we looked dangerous. He has such great vision and has the kicking skills to back it up.

Unfortunately like that Richmond game - the corridor movement stopped in second half in the GF and Coleman struggles to have the same influence. We still had some nice ball movement but it was more out wide. Collingwood kept going through the middle and seemed better at getting that extra number thought the middle. They picked off some dangerous kicks and some they executed and some the didn't. But, they were prepared to continue taking the corridor. I feel sometimes we go back into a defensive mode and too much down the line.

I hope in the off season we work on kick in's a bit more. When we take a bit more risk with our kick in's and ball movement we look so dangerous. We have to learn if we make an error not to go into a our shell.

With Kiddy - McKenna - Wilmot we have the talent and kicking ability to take teams on.

For me it's pretty simple... I just think the conditions got to us. We lost the capacity to work laterally across the ground to present options and/or create space for others. And equally we lost the capacity to go with our opponents when THEY worked laterally to present. It was a damning indictment on our conditioning in weather which should have suited us more than them.

Stats aren't the be all and end all but when they all line up the same way it tells a pretty clear story. 272kms to 281, 3 goals to 9 in time on of quarters, but the kicker for me was we only managed 49 intercepts for the day. This was our lowest effort for the season, even less than we managed against Port in Round 1. So if it felt like we just couldn't get the ball off them, this is why.

To CarterS's comments, bang on, they were nearly always ready for our switch attempts. Switch anyway. You may have to switch a little deeper than you'd like, but come out the other side, then go back if you need to. Like we did against Melbourne in Round 18.

If the front men in their zone know we're going to keep switching regardless of their positioning, eventually they're gonna get a little bit hungry, come a little bit too far forward, and that is when space opens up in behind them for the short kick into the corridor. And that's when you get run and carry and overlap handball from behind. But you have to keep at it, and you have to have players in position to execute. It's a battle of wills that we lost comprehensively in that sense.

It's like how Glenn McGrath used to tease batsmen out... He might get a wicket with the 5th ball of the over, but the 4 before it were often equally as important in setting the batsman up.

Anyway enough about that.

Something else Collingwood did really well was own the outer layer of the stoppages. Richard Little does some great work with this and posts about this in each of his previews:



So this came to pass with guys like Lachie often getting first hands on the ball. But then Collingwood were able to effectively ring fence the contest area, so we either coughed it up when trying to feed it out, or we tried to carry the ball from inside to out. And that's how you get a guy like Tom Mitchell making 13 tackles. Didn't even think he knew how to spell "tackle".

Whereas when Collingwood players got the ball around contests, when they got it they were already up and going, hence much harder to tackle, and we missed a truckload. Perhaps over summer we may benefit from reviewing our balance between hard and loose ball gets - that inner vs outer layer of ground ball contests. And obviously working on our tackling

What else was there... oh, players slipping over ad nauseum... feel like we've watched this movie over and over again this year. Wear the right bloody boots! Actually the game itself felt a bit like those two finals against the Giants and the Dogs. Yeah we were having a fair old crack and we had our moments but you just never got the sense we were going to be in front when the siren went.



So I think the moral to the story is we simply have to be fitter. If we trust ourselves to run out games, we don't have to worry about sticking +1's behind the ball or flooding the football or whatever other strategies we employed late in the season to hang on in tight finishes. We can just go out and win the bloody game.

And improving our conditioning will also mean we have less of those random periods in the middle of games where we simply switch off and get opened up for no apparent reason. The first thing to go when you are tired is your decision making etc and this to me is a clear sign that we are not quite where we need to be.

The other thing improved conditioning will do is give us the extra flexibility to revert to the 3-tall forward setup if desired, or 2 rucks. Either/or.

Bit fed up watching this immensely talented team dominate periods of games, but then still having to hang on by their fingertips to get the win at the death. (Not talking about the Grand Final here, just games in general)

Between now and March we need to lean into what should be an exceptionally hot summer (thanks El Nino), and use it to our benefit, rather than using it as an excuse to maybe not train quite as hard as we should, which a couple of players have alluded to in the past.

We have this amazing natural advantage up here over the rest of the competition. We should be making the most of it.

 

[Mr Ripper]

It has been a long time since I've been here. Since I came here as a tragic in early 2005, I've changed. I no longer hold aligience to any AFL Club as I've dedicated myself to serving community footy.

I just wanted to come here and say that I don't think the Lions were robbed. Was it a bad advantage call, hell, probably, looked bad to me. But it wasn't deliberate, not malicious, there was no bloody conspiracy like I've seen being circulated in social media.

It was a classic Grand Final. I love every minute of it. All the respect in the world to Fly and the team.

Less so to windbags like Eddie and 90% of their fanbase. hehehehe.

Hey Chezza! You still working with the umpires at all?

 

[Macca180]

Much better to lose a GF in a close match dubbed one of the best GFs in the 21st century than get flogged in a GF or prelim. It was a great week and one we will all remember. More importantly, we - players and fans - have experienced a taste of the final success. We all want to taste that success again. Nothing will motivate the players more.

This x100

Proud of the boys

But **** me when Charlie kicked that goal... I was up and about.

 

[Chezzalenko Reborn]

Hey Chezza! You still working with the umpires at all?

Hello my good friend! I was just thinking of the times I'd come and see you in yo0ur section. Those were good days!

I am still in fact a goal umpire. League's best goal umpire for 2023 by the way...... for Townsville!

So for all the haters there.... BITE MY SHINEY METAL MEDAL!

Hope you are well mate

 

[John_Proctor]

...

After that, the Preliminary Finals should have been flipped. Yes, I acknowledge the fact that Collingwood's ladder position would ordinarily dictate they get the Friday night game and the 8 day break for the Grand Final. However, they already had the advantage of essentially hosting the Grand Final, which as you've alluded to, very few teams get to do under the current arrangement.

I felt that an 8 day break on top of playing the Grand Final on your home ground, against a travelling team with one less day to prepare, was excessive. Particularly after Collingwood played a team in the prelim off a 6 day break, while Brisbane played a team off an 8 day break.

The whole notion of "top team plays the Friday prelim" was originally introduced as a way to benefit the top team where they were outside Victoria, like Port in 2004. I don't think at the time that advantage was ever intended, or needs, to extend to the Melbourne based clubs.

The other alternative was to play the Port v GWS on the Friday night. Yes, both clubs would have had a 6 day break but it would have been the same for both. Then, from that point on, all teams would have a 7 day break, except the Friday prelim winner earning an 8 day break.

That didn't happen however, with the AFL wanting Melbourne v Carlton on the Friday night, evidently putting $$$ ahead of a fair and equitable competition. Yet again.

Appreciate the above may sound like sour grapes. However I did raise the prospect of all of the above happening right back when the Collingwood v Melbourne QF on the Thursday was first mooted. That it all came to pass pretty much exactly as I predicted with virtually no critical analysis by the media was particularly galling, but not really surprising.



Anyway, none of the above made a lick of difference on Grand Final day. We had conditions in our favour but your guys simply handled them better. Congratulations.

I think one of the issues for the AFL with scheduling is covering all possibilities.

Lets say they made the Brisbane prelim Friday night and the Collingwood/Port one Saturday.

In the event that Port Adelaide had beaten Collingwood in the Prelim then Brisbane would have had an 8 day break and been at home in Prelim week and Port would have had to travel to Melbourne, back to Adelaide then back to Melbourne with 1 less day break than Brisbane would have had. Where as if Carlton had beaten us they would have flown home and not needed to travel again.

So while Collingwood was advantaged by the situation on the balance of probabilities it may have been the fairest outcome.

(re-read the above but switch Brisbane and Port to consider how annoyed we'd be in the reverse scheduling option)