I was having a discussion with a Roys supporter the other week about Fitzroy's finals appearances in the 80's. One comment that was made was that the Roys didn't have that physical edge to beat the likes of Collingwood and Hawthorn, and other teams of the like, who had finals experience over a number of years. There were a couple of times in the 80's, when the Roys met some of these top sides in do or die clashes, and were not up to it physically, and ultimately were intimidated into losing the game.
With this in mind, one thing that seems to be a major factor in successful teams, is the ability of that team to intimidate the opposition physically.
Take a look at the likes of WCE and North in the early and late 90's respectively, as well Essendon and Carlton of recent. The successes of those units can be partly put down to how they go about dealing with the opposition. All of these teams have/had and excellent intimidation factor.
In the preliminary final of 1999, there were stages when the Lions looked small compared to that of the Roos players. Comparitively, they weren't 'actually' smaller, but they certainly looked smaller in stature.
Similarly, against Carlton in this year's finals series, the Lions were smashed by the likes of Hamill, Allan, Porter and others. A lot of times the Lions just looked to be taking the second step to the ball, rather than being the first in, breaking the packs.
It's not that the Lions don't have the ability or skill to match it with these sides either. For instance, the manner in which the Lions have disposed of weaker sides over the last 2 seasons is very similar to that of Essendon and Carlton in 2000. On paper, the Lions also have just as much talent on average across the field as any of the other top sides.
However, when we seem to encounter any one of these to sides in a do or die clash, we seem to be intimidated into losing. Similarly, we seem unable to match the intensity set by these top sides. If the Lions are to be a premiership side, they need to set the intensity themselves, leaving the opposition to match it (let them play to our tune - which is what has happened to us).
One comment at this year's finals meeting against Carlton was "they don't know when to play the man".
Apart from taking this as a comment to imply that the Lions should play 'dirty', you could also take it that the Lions don't know when to play in a physical way to win a game.
I think knowing when to run through an opposition player is just as much a part of top football as is good disposal, team work, and any other attribute you care to name.
I'm not suggesting that the Lions do a Mick Martyn, and belt someone senseless for the sake of winning - however, there are plenty of other ways of showing your physicallity and marking a stamp of authority on the game.
IMO, this is the one area that the Lions lack in their game. They don't have that physical edge when confronting top sides. Similarly, against top side, the Lions often get caught playing to 'their tune' - often unable to match this intensity. In 1999, the preliminary final was won by North on the basis that the Lions let them play 'their' game too much. The same happened against Carlton this year - we were smashed out of the midfield, and then offered very little resistence in defense.
In both cases, the physicality of the opposition appeared to be a major factor in which way the game turned at crucial points. A lot of these crucial points were signified by big name players putting their body in and doing the big things (ie: G.Archer's goal in the 3rd qtr from 60m out in 1999, and A.Hamill for most of the game in 2000).
Apart from the likes of Voss, Molloy, C.Scott, Lawrence, A.Lynch, and a few others, in the last two years we haven't had many individual players who have been capable of emulating similar feats on the field.
The drafting of M.Pike, and the growing stature of some of the other players should help to combat this.
However, is it also a case of "team/club culture" coming into play? Clubs like Essendon, Carlton, and North (in the 90's), have almost seen it as their right to win, and take the opportunity by the throat. This type of thinking seems to be bred-in at these clubs. Part of the culture.
In contrast, you have a club like Geelong, who were easily good enough going on ability alone, to have won one or more premierships in the 90's. However, in most cases they came up against opposition who took it up to them physically, and showed them up as not having the grit required to win a premiership. Similarly, their record through the 90's, albeit quite good, has also been fairly erratic.
Then you also have a club like St.Kilda, who having only won one premiership, always seem to falter against the top sides, despite often having shown enough ability beforehand. Afterall, they were favourites in 1997. Similarly, their record since hasn't been that notable.
Similarly, Fitzroy's record in the 80's also showed that they were an extremely capable side, however, were knocked out by more experienced and physically tougher opposition teams such as Collingwood, Hawthorn, Carlton etc.
IMO, Leigh Matthews is one of the best people available to give this sort of "club culture" to the Lions. However, is it also a case that this type of culture is "bred" into a club, via it's history of successes?
I'm interested to know what other people think. Does anybody else reckon that our major downfall over the past few years has been not being able to match it with the top sides physically in do or die clashes?
Is it just a case of experience, or is it something that can be 'taught' to the players?
Do people agree that club culture is an important aspect?
With this in mind, one thing that seems to be a major factor in successful teams, is the ability of that team to intimidate the opposition physically.
Take a look at the likes of WCE and North in the early and late 90's respectively, as well Essendon and Carlton of recent. The successes of those units can be partly put down to how they go about dealing with the opposition. All of these teams have/had and excellent intimidation factor.
In the preliminary final of 1999, there were stages when the Lions looked small compared to that of the Roos players. Comparitively, they weren't 'actually' smaller, but they certainly looked smaller in stature.
Similarly, against Carlton in this year's finals series, the Lions were smashed by the likes of Hamill, Allan, Porter and others. A lot of times the Lions just looked to be taking the second step to the ball, rather than being the first in, breaking the packs.
It's not that the Lions don't have the ability or skill to match it with these sides either. For instance, the manner in which the Lions have disposed of weaker sides over the last 2 seasons is very similar to that of Essendon and Carlton in 2000. On paper, the Lions also have just as much talent on average across the field as any of the other top sides.
However, when we seem to encounter any one of these to sides in a do or die clash, we seem to be intimidated into losing. Similarly, we seem unable to match the intensity set by these top sides. If the Lions are to be a premiership side, they need to set the intensity themselves, leaving the opposition to match it (let them play to our tune - which is what has happened to us).
One comment at this year's finals meeting against Carlton was "they don't know when to play the man".
Apart from taking this as a comment to imply that the Lions should play 'dirty', you could also take it that the Lions don't know when to play in a physical way to win a game.
I think knowing when to run through an opposition player is just as much a part of top football as is good disposal, team work, and any other attribute you care to name.
I'm not suggesting that the Lions do a Mick Martyn, and belt someone senseless for the sake of winning - however, there are plenty of other ways of showing your physicallity and marking a stamp of authority on the game.
IMO, this is the one area that the Lions lack in their game. They don't have that physical edge when confronting top sides. Similarly, against top side, the Lions often get caught playing to 'their tune' - often unable to match this intensity. In 1999, the preliminary final was won by North on the basis that the Lions let them play 'their' game too much. The same happened against Carlton this year - we were smashed out of the midfield, and then offered very little resistence in defense.
In both cases, the physicality of the opposition appeared to be a major factor in which way the game turned at crucial points. A lot of these crucial points were signified by big name players putting their body in and doing the big things (ie: G.Archer's goal in the 3rd qtr from 60m out in 1999, and A.Hamill for most of the game in 2000).
Apart from the likes of Voss, Molloy, C.Scott, Lawrence, A.Lynch, and a few others, in the last two years we haven't had many individual players who have been capable of emulating similar feats on the field.
The drafting of M.Pike, and the growing stature of some of the other players should help to combat this.
However, is it also a case of "team/club culture" coming into play? Clubs like Essendon, Carlton, and North (in the 90's), have almost seen it as their right to win, and take the opportunity by the throat. This type of thinking seems to be bred-in at these clubs. Part of the culture.
In contrast, you have a club like Geelong, who were easily good enough going on ability alone, to have won one or more premierships in the 90's. However, in most cases they came up against opposition who took it up to them physically, and showed them up as not having the grit required to win a premiership. Similarly, their record through the 90's, albeit quite good, has also been fairly erratic.
Then you also have a club like St.Kilda, who having only won one premiership, always seem to falter against the top sides, despite often having shown enough ability beforehand. Afterall, they were favourites in 1997. Similarly, their record since hasn't been that notable.
Similarly, Fitzroy's record in the 80's also showed that they were an extremely capable side, however, were knocked out by more experienced and physically tougher opposition teams such as Collingwood, Hawthorn, Carlton etc.
IMO, Leigh Matthews is one of the best people available to give this sort of "club culture" to the Lions. However, is it also a case that this type of culture is "bred" into a club, via it's history of successes?
I'm interested to know what other people think. Does anybody else reckon that our major downfall over the past few years has been not being able to match it with the top sides physically in do or die clashes?
Is it just a case of experience, or is it something that can be 'taught' to the players?
Do people agree that club culture is an important aspect?
