Review Round 11, 2023 - Adelaide vs. Brisbane Lions

[T Rick]

Hippy's tackling and pressure was manic...he was really doing everything he possibly could on a difficult day to play the team role. Well done to Hippy!

 

[Nathan Barley]

Hippy's tackling and pressure was manic...he was really doing everything he possibly could on a difficult day to play the team role. Well done to Hippy!

Averaging close to 4 tackles a game in the last 5 weeks. Previously he averaged just over 1

 

[Nunez]

If he can just add 2 goals a game to his manic pressure, we'd be laughing.

 

[Viceregal]

Could be a Maga, he is a threat to the democracy of our board.

If BigFooty is a democracy then someone had been let Chief and our Mods know!

unless of course you are conflating 'democracy' with oligarchy or authoritarianism like our American 'friends' do in which case play on

 

[M Malice]

If BigFooty is a democracy then someone had been let Chief and our Mods know!

unless of course you are conflating 'democracy' with oligarchy or authoritarianism like our American 'friends' do in which case play on

 

[Brizzys Squizzy]

Oh I can see how you read it that way now. All I meant was that we would lose additional games for the rest of the year.

Fair enough I obviously read it differently.

 

[bungalow_bill]

Yes, we were robbed of seeing Hipwood kick a behind. (sorry)

 

[Dalions]

If we can’t play Cam Rayner in the middle more then maybe we can play him one out in the goal square more often.
He is a bloody good one on one mark and strong enough to be able to push off and create separation.
On the second page of this Insta, A bit of a scrubber goal but a strong mark from Cam here with Doedee all over him.

 

[Nathan Barley]

Clug sounded really sick at the start of kick ons. Wonder if a bug went through the team

 

[Grasshopper17]

We're 0-3 against top 8 teams away from home. It's been a pattern for years and they still haven't rectified it.

This is a bit of a misnomer in my view. If we'd won we'd have been 0-2 against top 8 teams away from home. Cos Adelaide would have been 5-6 and outside the 8. But the stat would still be telling us exactly the same thing.

"Cause and effect my love"

 

[Grasshopper17]

We're 0-3 against top 8 teams away from home. It's been a pattern for years and they still haven't rectified it.

Actually on further review, you're absolutely right. It's been at least 22 years:

2001
Lost to Port Adelaide by 6 points
Lost to Richmond by 22 points
Beat Sydney by 32 points
Lost to Carlton by 74 points

And that's it. We didn't play another top 8 team away from the Gabba until the Grand Final. Thus I hereby declare our 2001 team a bunch of pretenders who will never be able to win when it matters.

2002
Lost to West Coast by 46 points
Lost to Collingwood by 3 points
Lost to Adelaide by 7 points
Beat Essendon by 37 points
Lost to Port Adelaide by 6 points

What a bunch of frauds. Only won when the opposition coach goaded us into it by telling everyone there were "no rules".

2003
Beat Port Adelaide by 10 points
Lost to Sydney by 19 points
Lost to Fremantle by 3 points
Lost to Essendon by 8 points
Beat Collingwood by 39 points

Well blow me down with a feather duster. A whole TWO wins for the whole year against top 8 teams! A paragon of unbridled success!

2004
Lost to West Coast by 3 points
Lost to St Kilda by 1 point
Beat Essendon by 66 points
Lost to Geelong by 27 points
Lost to Sydney by 32 points

Well I guess we finished up with a % of over 100?

So, those are the numbers. Spin em however you like. Looks like we will get the chance to play a number of top 8 teams on the run to September. History suggests we need to be able to win at least one of them.

History also suggests however that even our greatest ever team was anything but "great" on the road against top 8 teams.

 

[Grasshopper17]

Clug sounded really sick at the start of kick ons. Wonder if a bug went through the team

He had a bit of a coughing fit part of the way through too didn't he

 

[Sanchez365]

Actually on further review, you're absolutely right. It's been at least 22 years:

2001
Lost to Port Adelaide by 6 points
Lost to Richmond by 22 points
Beat Sydney by 32 points
Lost to Carlton by 74 points

And that's it. We didn't play another top 8 team away from the Gabba until the Grand Final. Thus I hereby declare our 2001 team a bunch of pretenders who will never be able to win when it matters.

2002
Lost to West Coast by 46 points
Lost to Collingwood by 3 points
Lost to Adelaide by 7 points
Beat Essendon by 37 points
Lost to Port Adelaide by 6 points

What a bunch of frauds. Only won when the opposition coach goaded us into it by telling everyone there were "no rules".

2003
Beat Port Adelaide by 10 points
Lost to Sydney by 19 points
Lost to Fremantle by 3 points
Lost to Essendon by 8 points
Beat Collingwood by 39 points

Well blow me down with a feather duster. A whole TWO wins for the whole year against top 8 teams! A paragon of unbridled success!

2004
Lost to West Coast by 3 points
Lost to St Kilda by 1 point
Beat Essendon by 66 points
Lost to Geelong by 27 points
Lost to Sydney by 32 points

Well I guess we finished up with a % of over 100?

So, those are the numbers. Spin em however you like. Looks like we will get the chance to play a number of top 8 teams on the run to September. History suggests we need to be able to win at least one of them.

History also suggests however that even our greatest ever team was anything but "great" on the road against top 8 teams.

Why save your good away games for anytime other then September I guess. 5W 0L at the Gabba so far with a 3W 3L away record.

I think if we can at least bank an easy away MCG win (like Hawthorn next weekend) that will alleviate some doubts.

 

[Gadzorks]

But we do keep losing to top 8 teams away, during the home and away season AND finals. This is the point. We're not making that final leap because of it.

To be fair, we are only likey to be beaten by top 8 teams. And when we play them at our home, we are more likely to win, at their home they are more likely to win.

When we play lower teams away we are unlikely to lose because we are a top team and they aren't.

Sure we have to win away to win a grand final, but everyone knows finals are a different game and home and away season form doesn't dictate finals performance. I believe we have a level to step up and will do so in the finals campaign.

 

[Grasshopper17]

For what it's worth, if the ladder stays the same as it is now, by the end of the season we'll have played 6 of the 7 other top 8 teams away from home.

This is obviously more than any of the years identified above, and if any of Freo, Gold Coast, Carlton, the Giants or Hawthorn come in to replace Essendon, we'll have the royal flush, which I reckon would be unprecedented.

By way of background, assuming a neutral draw, if we play 12 away games, and there are 17 other teams, on average we should play 4.94 (ie 5) of the other 7 teams playing finals (12÷17x7).

Last year we played 5 away games against top 8 teams, and won 1 of them (Geelong, Sydney, Freo, Melbourne, Richmond).

In 2019 (ignoring covid affected years) we played Essendon (L), Bulldogs (L), Giants (W), Richmond (L).

So they are and always have been very hard games to win, and it is exceedingly rare for us to win 2. But this year, if we do make the top 2, we'll likely have to do at least that, so if we do make it we'll have well and truly earnt it.

Having said that, if we're able to win all our home games and only beat teams outside the 8 away from home, this will give us a final record of 17-6, and if nothing else we'd be a model of consistency, not that it would stop the bleating from the Melbourne meeja. This would surely be enough for a top 4 spot, but probably not quite top 2.

We've never gone undefeated at the Gabba through a whole season tho. Our 2002 team did go unbeaten away against non top 8 teams however, so it has been done!

 

[Grasshopper17]

We also seemed to slip over a lot more often than they did.

One thing I have noticed is that even at the Gabba our guys tend to slip over more often than our opposition. Seems bizarre that we would fail to understand our own conditions and wear the appropriate footwear, but that's how it looks a lot of the time.

 

[T Rick]

One thing I have noticed is that even at the Gabba our guys tend to slip over more often than our opposition. Seems bizarre that we would fail to understand our own conditions and wear the appropriate footwear, but that's how it looks a lot of the time.

Is there actually different footwear for a wet track? I thought with moulded soles it was more or less all the same these days.

 

[Grasshopper17]

TL;DR

1. We wouldn't have missed as many shots at the Gabba
2. Our forward entries need work UNLESS
3. Fort/Fullarton comes in for Gunston
4. Sub Fort out in the third quarter and move Rayner to full forward

Apologies for derailing the thread somewhat above... I actually did have some thoughts about Sunday's game! However having attended with some mates who live in Adelaide, my levels of intoxication only rose throughout the game, which to be fair did make the final result considerably more palatable.

So my comments are pretty general... Yes we missed a lot of shots in the 3rd quarter but I'm not sure too many of them were the absolute certainties guys like Berry and Rayner missed last week. Yes Ashcroft missed from directly in front but other than that most of our set shots seemed to be from 30+ out or on tricky angles. I think this is borne out by this chart of our shots at goal:



The numbers are the "expected score" from each position, and the ones ending in "S" are our set shots. Almost all of them were either a fair distance out or on tricky angles. Then we had a lot of hurried snaps which another day sees a few more of those go through.

But so far we're pretty much putting this down to the weather and "one of those days". Here's something left field I think is worth mentioning:

The dimensions of the ground

The Gabba is 156m long. Adelaide Oval is 167m long. This means that if you are transitioning from a kick in, and you end up with a shot at goal, you are likely to be 10m further out than if you were at the Gabba. If you did everything the same at both grounds.

Similarly, if you win a centre clearance and end up with a shot at goal, you're likely to be 5m further out.

Here's a look at our accuracy on Sunday:



We hit the post THREE times. Chances are, if we have those same shots only a metre or two closer to goal, they go through the middle. That's 13-15 (93) instead of 10-18. Similarly, 5 rushed behinds. At the Gabba, those are most likely scoring untouched, and if one of them is a goal, there's your win.

Also, those extra goals in the first 3 quarters most likely mean we aren't gifting Adelaide goals in the last quarter as a result of taking excessive risks coming out of defence.

There's a big BUT in this analysis however... The MCG is 173m long. So we're going to have to go to town on this one way or the other. The knee jerk reaction is to say we need to practice our goal kicking, but I want to address something a number of us have already mentioned here, and which I touched on after the Essendon game (here)...

Ball movement and forward entries

Yes, 28 scores and 66 inside 50s should be enough to get the job done 9 times out of 10, but check this out:



41% is pretty poor, and so is the 55% defensively. But there's reasons for that. When you're as relentless as we were in the third quarter, with the ball ping ponging from half forward to our goal square for basically 20 minutes, there isn't going to be much choice but to bomb it long and high on people's heads, simply because there's no spaces to lead into. (Altho I'd still like to see blokes leading, simply to create chaos and doubt for defenders)

Then there's the other side of the same coin, where if the other mob are successful in "running the gauntlet", they get out the back and they have acres of space in their forward line. Hence that 55%.

So as counterintuitive as it seems, our accuracy issues actually affected our defensive efficiency!

All this begs the question about...

Jack Gunston

We've recruited this guy to fix our forward 50 entries, to get our forward unit working more cohesively, and to bag a couple of goals a week. This all sounds very nice, but let's forget about his personal performance for a moment... We're 11 games in, and the rest of the team has still not got the memo!

9 times out of 10 we still kick long to contests inside 50. But guess what else? That method of play is far more sustainable in finals than relying on "hitting a lead".

All this is a tactful way of saying, Gunston out, Fort in. Or Fullarton, I don't mind... I'd actually like to think Fullarton is up to it given his potential longevity at the club. But Fort has shown more at the level so he gets first crack.

Then we look at how the game is going... Usually we'll want some fresh legs so we sub Fort out of the game after two and a half quarters, and Rayner takes his spot as a contested marking full forward (who is also good on the lead). Dunkley could also play the role but that detracts from his ability to play big midfield minutes.

We make Ah Chee or Dev or Kai the sub and they come in for what it's basically Rayner's "ground ball game".

Or maybe we are happy with our height so we sub out a smaller bloke for our sub. Or maybe big O needs a spell so we sub him out and put Fort in the ruck. Keen to see Joe maintain his rucking time anyway.

Fork in the road time

So that's the conundrum... Either we keep going down this path of trying to get our ball movement right, hoping that we'll eventually click with Gunston, with no guarantee it's ever going to work (Gunston has never been the focal point in a successful September team remember).

OR we say, you know what, stuff it, we actually ARE a territory team, we're gonna just bang it long to big Forty, get Charlie and Linc at his feet, and form a wall behind them and keep pounding at that door till it busts open. It ain't rocket science, at times it might not be pretty, but history has shown it gets results when it matters.

 

[martinson]

TL;DR

1. We wouldn't have missed as many shots at the Gabba
2. Our forward entries need work UNLESS
3. Fort/Fullarton comes in for Gunston
4. Sub Fort out in the third quarter and move Rayner to full forward

Apologies for derailing the thread somewhat above... I actually did have some thoughts about Sunday's game! However having attended with some mates who live in Adelaide, my levels of intoxication only rose throughout the game, which to be fair did make the final result considerably more palatable.

So my comments are pretty general... Yes we missed a lot of shots in the 3rd quarter but I'm not sure too many of them were the absolute certainties guys like Berry and Rayner missed last week. Yes Ashcroft missed from directly in front but other than that most of our set shots seemed to be from 30+ out or on tricky angles. I think this is borne out by this chart of our shots at goal:

View attachment 1702153

The numbers are the "expected score" from each position, and the ones ending in "S" are our set shots. Almost all of them were either a fair distance out or on tricky angles. Then we had a lot of hurried snaps which another day sees a few more of those go through.

But so far we're pretty much putting this down to the weather and "one of those days". Here's something left field I think is worth mentioning:

The dimensions of the ground

The Gabba is 156m long. Adelaide Oval is 167m long. This means that if you are transitioning from a kick in, and you end up with a shot at goal, you are likely to be 10m further out than if you were at the Gabba. If you did everything the same at both grounds.

Similarly, if you win a centre clearance and end up with a shot at goal, you're likely to be 5m further out.

Here's a look at our accuracy on Sunday:

View attachment 1702163

We hit the post THREE times. Chances are, if we have those same shots only a metre or two closer to goal, they go through the middle. That's 13-15 (93) instead of 10-18. Similarly, 5 rushed behinds. At the Gabba, those are most likely scoring untouched, and if one of them is a goal, there's your win.

Also, those extra goals in the first 3 quarters most likely mean we aren't gifting Adelaide goals in the last quarter as a result of taking excessive risks coming out of defence.

There's a big BUT in this analysis however... The MCG is 173m long. So we're going to have to go to town on this one way or the other. The knee jerk reaction is to say we need to practice our goal kicking, but I want to address something a number of us have already mentioned here, and which I touched on after the Essendon game (here)...

Ball movement and forward entries

Yes, 28 scores and 66 inside 50s should be enough to get the job done 9 times out of 10, but check this out:

View attachment 1702181

41% is pretty poor, and so is the 55% defensively. But there's reasons for that. When you're as relentless as we were in the third quarter, with the ball ping ponging from half forward to our goal square for basically 20 minutes, there isn't going to be much choice but to bomb it long and high on people's heads, simply because there's no spaces to lead into. (Altho I'd still like to see blokes leading, simply to create chaos and doubt for defenders)

Then there's the other side of the same coin, where if the other mob are successful in "running the gauntlet", they get out the back and they have acres of space in their forward line. Hence that 55%.

So as counterintuitive as it seems, our accuracy issues actually affected our defensive efficiency!

All this begs the question about...

Jack Gunston

We've recruited this guy to fix our forward 50 entries, to get our forward unit working more cohesively, and to bag a couple of goals a week. This all sounds very nice, but let's forget about his personal performance for a moment... We're 11 games in, and the rest of the team has still not got the memo!

9 times out of 10 we still kick long to contests inside 50. But guess what else? That method of play is far more sustainable in finals than relying on "hitting a lead".

All this is a tactful way of saying, Gunston out, Fort in. Or Fullarton, I don't mind... I'd actually like to think Fullarton is up to it given his potential longevity at the club. But Fort has shown more at the level so he gets first crack.

Then we look at how the game is going... Usually we'll want some fresh legs so we sub Fort out of the game after two and a half quarters, and Rayner takes his spot as a contested marking full forward (who is also good on the lead). Dunkley could also play the role but that detracts from his ability to play big midfield minutes.

We make Ah Chee or Dev or Kai the sub and they come in for what it's basically Rayner's "ground ball game".

Or maybe we are happy with our height so we sub out a smaller bloke for our sub. Or maybe big O needs a spell so we sub him out and put Fort in the ruck. Keen to see Joe maintain his rucking time anyway.

Fork in the road time

So that's the conundrum... Either we keep going down this path of trying to get our ball movement right, hoping that we'll eventually click with Gunston, with no guarantee it's ever going to work (Gunston has never been the focal point in a successful September team remember).

OR we say, you know what, stuff it, we actually ARE a territory team, we're gonna just bang it long to big Forty, get Charlie and Linc at his feet, and form a wall behind them and keep pounding at that door till it busts open. It ain't rocket science, at times it might not be pretty, but history has shown it gets results when it matters.

That was a very interesting point you made re the dimensions of the grounds and if you don't play at the MCG hardly at all those extra few metres where the ball just dies or drifts off has done many teams in over the years . Likewise teams who are successful at the MCG usually have a focal point or two of key forwards who stand up in marking contests. And at least give their team mates first dibs.

Always observed that and wondered why.

 

[Grasshopper17]

Is there actually different footwear for a wet track? I thought with moulded soles it was more or less all the same these days.

I thought this too, but I heard someone (on Fox I think) the other week talking about how they now have special mouldeds that feel and play like screw-ins. Maybe they are still that plastic/rubbery stuff but are skinnier and they cut deeper into the ground

I'm no boot expert so really I'd just be guessing on this... Obviously they must meet the necessary safety standards however, which I imagine are the reason traditional screw-ins are no longer en vogue.

 

[martinson]

That was a very interesting point you made re the dimensions of the grounds and if you don't play at the MCG hardly at all those extra few metres where the ball just dies or drifts off has done many teams in over the years . Likewise teams who are successful at the MCG usually have a focal point or two of key forwards who stand up in marking contests. And at least give their team mates first dibs.

Always observed that and wondered why.

The other interesting thing I've noticed re the MCG particularly in the era I grew up in and not sure what the data says now , but the resting ruckman has a habit of kicking goals. Richmond dined out on that when they first became a power in the '60's . All the power finals teams had 2 ruckmen.One often kicked goals.

I'd be interested to know if that still applies.

 

[Grasshopper17]

The other interesting thing I've noticed re the MCG particularly in the era I grew up in and not sure what the data says now , but the resting ruckman has a habit of kicking goals. Richmond dined out on that when they first became a power in the '60's . All the power finals teams had 2 ruckmen.One often kicked goals.

I'd be interested to know if that still applies.

Yeah good point... I hadn't thought of it like that but I guess it's another reason I'm a fan of 3 tall forwards, in principle. It allows one or two of them high up the field to support the team transitioning out of defence, while still leaving one guy as your more traditional full forward.

Perhaps at the smaller Gabba there is less room for 3 talls, which is why we often get frustrated watching two of them trying to mark the same ball. But to my mind we should always be developing a game style for winning a Grand Final, rather than to win all your home games.

I always thought Adam Simpson's reaction to Perth's new stadium was very odd. His initial thoughts were "oh damn, this is just like the MCG, we've lost our home ground advantage". Hand on heart my initial thoughts would have been "oh wow, 12+ games at the MCG each year... What an opportunity!"

 

[whizkizz]

Actually on further review, you're absolutely right. It's been at least 22 years:

2001
Lost to Port Adelaide by 6 points
Lost to Richmond by 22 points
Beat Sydney by 32 points
Lost to Carlton by 74 points

And that's it. We didn't play another top 8 team away from the Gabba until the Grand Final. Thus I hereby declare our 2001 team a bunch of pretenders who will never be able to win when it matters.

2002
Lost to West Coast by 46 points
Lost to Collingwood by 3 points
Lost to Adelaide by 7 points
Beat Essendon by 37 points
Lost to Port Adelaide by 6 points

What a bunch of frauds. Only won when the opposition coach goaded us into it by telling everyone there were "no rules".

2003
Beat Port Adelaide by 10 points
Lost to Sydney by 19 points
Lost to Fremantle by 3 points
Lost to Essendon by 8 points
Beat Collingwood by 39 points

Well blow me down with a feather duster. A whole TWO wins for the whole year against top 8 teams! A paragon of unbridled success!

2004
Lost to West Coast by 3 points
Lost to St Kilda by 1 point
Beat Essendon by 66 points
Lost to Geelong by 27 points
Lost to Sydney by 32 points

Well I guess we finished up with a % of over 100?

So, those are the numbers. Spin em however you like. Looks like we will get the chance to play a number of top 8 teams on the run to September. History suggests we need to be able to win at least one of them.

History also suggests however that even our greatest ever team was anything but "great" on the road against top 8 teams.

Great post.

I had a similar train of thought but across the league in 2023.

Fact of the matter is, Top 8 teams are tough to beat interstate.

14 times this year a Top 8 team from another state has travelled into enemy territory and attempted to knock off another Top 8 team (as per the current ladder).

Of those 14, only 2 times the away side has triumphed:

Rd 7 Port Adelaide dft. St Kilda @ Marvel (7pts)
Rd 7 Collingwood dft. Adelaide @ AO (1pt)

By the barest margins really. Meanwhile in the 12 losses, many of the margins have been blow outs.

No Top 8 team has a perfect away record against fellow Top 8 teams, with the two best records only going at 50%.

Collingwood 1/2 50% (dft by BL)
Port Adelaide 1/2 50% (dft by COL)
Adelaide 0/1 0% (dft by WBD)
St Kilda 0/1 0% (dft by ADE)
Western Bulldogs 0/1 0% (dft by PA)
Essendon 0/2 0% (dft by BL, PA)
Melbourne 0/2 0% (dft by BL, PA)
Brisbane 0/3 0% (dft by PA, WBD, ADE)

So there you have it. Not the be all end all, but does highlight we have had a tough fixture to date (and have more challenging assignments still to come in StK, Melb, Coll and Freo assuming they push into the 8).

History says we probably win one; but here's hoping we can buck history and jag a few!

 

[p4p1]

The Gabba and the MCG are very similar dimensions. I think you’re mixing up some dimensions here.
Gabba = 156x138
MCG = 160x141
Adelaide Oval = 167x123
Optus is close the MCG dimensions than Subiaco was but still not as close as the Gabba is.

 

[Grasshopper17]

The Gabba and the MCG are very similar dimensions. I think you’re mixing up some dimensions here.
Gabba = 156x138
MCG = 160x141
Adelaide Oval = 167x123
Optus is close the MCG dimensions than Subiaco was but still not as close as the Gabba is.

According to austadiums the G is 173m long.