Review Round 16, 2015 - Melbourne vs Brisbane Lions

[Pancho Gonzales]

I'm all for optimism, sticking by the club no matter what and packaging up whatever stats apply the wallpaper over the cracks, but geez... I was there today and we were goddamn awful. Terrible. Pathetic. McStay has been training with the forwards all year so let's send him back. Oh look - he's on Hogan and not sure what to do. Clarke has been training with the defenders all year, so let's send him forward. Oh look, he's shooting to goal from the boundary. Let's continue to assume for no logical reason at all that our half backs can run, carry and create and ignore the continual turnovers - we'll just kick it out wide from defense every chance we get regardless of what sort of contest is presenting. Oh look, we don't run, we don't carry and we don't create. Let's ignore 2, 3, 4 Melbourne players drifting into the corridor behind our "defense" - it's not like footy's played in the corridor...oh wait...what?

FFS my 4 year old knows that 2 is more than 1 but our players apparently don't - let's just kick it there anyway. Fair dinkum. Quote all the numbers you want in the presser Leppa; the bloke in the outer can see that your team has no structure and no ticker. The photocopy of Richmond's photocopy of Hawthorn's late 2000's game plan is getting a bit too faint to read anymore. If you can't fix this, do me a favour and clean out your desk. I've had enough.

 

[lukiuslion]

I was at the game. Worst Game I've ever been to. Left without any emotional drain, just putrid, uninspired football, devoid of any passion.

We have gone backwards this year, that isn't up for debate.

We didn't have a forward line this time last year and were a much better team.

Simple fact - dockers and swans coasted againts us, the momemt there is the slightest expectation to win, we are putrid.

Hard to see any light, but we look to the sun. The grind continues and I'll be there with my scarf on.

 

[Schache It Off]

SIgh me and Vipertooth went to the game.

Rather spend the time drinking tbh.

 

[Happy_Neale]

Clarke was on Hogan pretty much the whole time until he went forward in the last (not sure who took Hogan then). Merrett was on Dawes most of the first half till he was swung forward. He was also running off his man a bit to help out. Paps was most often the loose man back

No, Clarke started on him then Merrett went to him and Clarke went to McDonald. Then Merrett went forward and McStay went back to play on Hogan. Then Clarke went forward and Merrett came back again and played on I think McDonald. Absolute cluster****, I was actually laughing about it at one point because it looked like nobody had any idea where to be.

 

[Happy_Neale]

McStay looked better in defence because he actually had to do something - not sure how long a player can be allowed to coast and still given a game in the name of playing the kids. So much potential but damn, just goes missing for almost entire games. Had one mark and one kick at half time.

John must have been cringing it up a beauty today.

 

[John_Proctor]

^ that has happened all this year. The three tall defenders just seem to play on whoever they happen to be standing closest too rather than actually being told pre game 'you are playing on x' and studying that persons tape all week to know how to best them.

Do not understand the shuffle defense that seems to be a result of our defensive zones when the ball is in or forward half.

Doesn't help that we aren't good at playing the zone and don't transition to defence quickly when there is a turnover (and there are lots) meaning we are often caught short or way out of position defensively.

I haven't seen any of today's game but sounds like the essendon game to men where I noticed all of the above in the second half.

 

[Skoob]

A few things set the tone (in my eyes) yesterday;

1. Early in the first, inside our forward 50, a loose ball on the ground between 2 Demons and Mayes; the 2 Dees compete for the ball as Mayes watches to see who he has to chase. Doesn't compete for the ball, waits. No surprise that the Dees clear their defensive 50.
2. Pick any number of Lions with time and space who handballed 3-5m to a mate, only to be tackled as soon as they received it. It was like a hot potato, pick it up and get rid of it ASAP with no regard to where it was being sent. No-one wanted to take responsibility for possession. Nick Robertson got caught again, but at least he grabbed it and took ownership, taking the game on.
3. Later in the game was a great example of structure; Mayes* wins the ball in the back line (deep), then about 20 seconds later he's competing for it at half forward. Good that he covers so much ground, you might think, but to me it was another example of dysfunction. Structure just didn't exist for most of the game.
4. Taylor, took on his opponent a few times, but what stood out to me were the few times he receives the ball uncontested on the wing and stopped. More than once he was 10m clear of an opponent and had a paddock ahead to run in, but stopped. Even without a target, the opportunity was there to advance. The number of times we stop to decide where to go, drives me mad. The number of times there are 1 or 2 loose men and we wait to pass to a player with an opponent holding their hand is incredible.

*Not to single out Mayes for any reason other than as a couple of examples that stood out.

I have to wonder what was discussed as a group through the week. "This is a game we should win". "Now is the time to show how good we are". "It'll be good to get a win for our Melbourne fans".
It looked from the start that we were trying to be classy and finesse the ball. A relaxed, easy style, that we simply don't have the class for, and one that had no regard for the opposition. They pressured and hunted the ball with intent, failing to provide the easy ride it looked like we expected.

 

[KissKiss]

No, Clarke started on him then Merrett went to him and Clarke went to McDonald. Then Merrett went forward and McStay went back to play on Hogan. Then Clarke went forward and Merrett came back again and played on I think McDonald. Absolute cluster****, I was actually laughing about it at one point because it looked like nobody had any idea where to be.

I'm not sure about that. Pretty sure 90% of the time when I looked up Clarke had Hogan for the first half. Second half did get messy when we started throwing all our defenders forward

 

[MSB ROYS]

Very average. Confidence of players and supporters shot...

 

[SizeMatters]

I'm sick of our players always getting tackled with the ball and not looking to get it out of congestion... that's IMO the main reason we are the number 1 stoppage team in the comp because he can't clear the ball out effectively. At a stoppage situation our players go in and the first thing they do even if there is a free player out of congestion is to brace for impact and fall to ground. So many times on the weekend they ignored first option and held onto the ball longer than they should have and brace for contact. Drives me mad watching the Dees work themselves out of the stoppage perfectly as they had a structure, used first options and if they are to be tackled they free the arms and dispose of the ball when there is an option.

 

[Cooties]

I'm starting to think maybe a lack of a forward line and injuries aren't our only problems...

 

[jackess]

I'm starting to think maybe a lack of a forward line and injuries aren't our only problems...

I think the list of everything we are doing poorly as a club would be a lot longer than the list of things we're doing well.

 

[Happy_Neale]

I'm not sure about that. Pretty sure 90% of the time when I looked up Clarke had Hogan for the first half. Second half did get messy when we started throwing all our defenders forward

Yeah when I say started on him I mean for the first quarter and a bit, for some reason we waited until he had kicked three before switching.

 

[KissKiss]

Yeah when I say started on him I mean for the first quarter and a bit, for some reason we waited until he had kicked three before switching.

I do have to admit that I was at the other end of the ground from him in the second quarter so could have missed if it was changed then

 

[adey115]

Taking off the Lions hat, trying to look at it as a neutral.....

How in the world is AFL really going to take on the non-traditional AFL states, if the game itself is played in this manner? I think Adelaide and Port had 35 goals between then. The Lions and Dees had 12.

We may be tripe, but I also feel that the game itself is in trouble, if it continues in this manner. Port Vs Adelaide was the exception to the rule this year. Fast flowing, high scoring, exciting to watch, end to end. That style of game is what will appeal to those we want to convert to the game. But - why would anyone be excited by AFL and become a convert, if what is on offer is 12 goals a game?

I don't expect 35 goals a game. But, 7 out of the 9 games featured 25 goals or less. Same the week before. It's more than tough watching your team play like that - its demoralising. But I feel that trouble brews beyond just the form of the Lions.

 

[Panthera]

A few things set the tone (in my eyes) yesterday;

1. Early in the first, inside our forward 50, a loose ball on the ground between 2 Demons and Mayes; the 2 Dees compete for the ball as Mayes watches to see who he has to chase. Doesn't compete for the ball, waits. No surprise that the Dees clear their defensive 50.
2. Pick any number of Lions with time and space who handballed 3-5m to a mate, only to be tackled as soon as they received it. It was like a hot potato, pick it up and get rid of it ASAP with no regard to where it was being sent. No-one wanted to take responsibility for possession. Nick Robertson got caught again, but at least he grabbed it and took ownership, taking the game on.
3. Later in the game was a great example of structure; Mayes* wins the ball in the back line (deep), then about 20 seconds later he's competing for it at half forward. Good that he covers so much ground, you might think, but to me it was another example of dysfunction. Structure just didn't exist for most of the game.
4. Taylor, took on his opponent a few times, but what stood out to me were the few times he receives the ball uncontested on the wing and stopped. More than once he was 10m clear of an opponent and had a paddock ahead to run in, but stopped. Even without a target, the opportunity was there to advance. The number of times we stop to decide where to go, drives me mad. The number of times there are 1 or 2 loose men and we wait to pass to a player with an opponent holding their hand is incredible.

*Not to single out Mayes for any reason other than as a couple of examples that stood out.

I have to wonder what was discussed as a group through the week. "This is a game we should win". "Now is the time to show how good we are". "It'll be good to get a win for our Melbourne fans".
It looked from the start that we were trying to be classy and finesse the ball. A relaxed, easy style, that we simply don't have the class for, and one that had no regard for the opposition. They pressured and hunted the ball with intent, failing to provide the easy ride it looked like we expected.

Whilst painful, I stayed until 22mins of Q4 and I did see the structure. Unfortunately the structure we have to play is probably not the right fit for us at the moment and we don't have the players to execute it.

Time and time again, we'd go wide (obviously pre-determined); but Paul Roos is a smart coach and always had at least 2 v 2 or even 3 v 2 against us out wide. And Melbourne always had two defensive players on the edge of the centre square just in case we took it through there.

It took until half time and being six goals down for us to actually take the game on and we looked OK until it was time to score. We lost by 4 goals to a very average team. And whilst it was tough to watch, I think a lot will be gained from this result; I feel we came down here thinking the 4pts were already in the bag.

I'd expect a strong start to the game this Saturday night and would not be surprised if we knocked off North.

 

[jackess]

Taking off the Lions hat, trying to look at it as a neutral.....

How in the world is AFL really going to take on the non-traditional AFL states, if the game itself is played in this manner? I think Adelaide and Port had 35 goals between then. The Lions and Dees had 12.

We may be tripe, but I also feel that the game itself is in trouble, if it continues in this manner. Port Vs Adelaide was the exception to the rule this year. Fast flowing, high scoring, exciting to watch, end to end. That style of game is what will appeal to those we want to convert to the game. But - why would anyone be excited by AFL and become a convert, if what is on offer is 12 goals a game?

I don't expect 35 goals a game. But, 7 out of the 9 games featured 25 goals or less. Same the week before. It's more than tough watching your team play like that - its demoralising. But I feel that trouble brews beyond just the form of the Lions.

What's the likelihood that at least 2 thirds of the crowd on Saturday will be Roos supporters?

 

[Happy_Neale]

Whilst painful, I stayed until 22mins of Q4 and I did see the structure. Unfortunately the structure we have to play is probably not the right fit for us at the moment and we don't have the players to execute it.

Time and time again, we'd go wide (obviously pre-determined); but Paul Roos is a smart coach and always had at least 2 v 2 or even 3 v 2 against us out wide. And Melbourne always had two defensive players on the edge of the centre square just in case we took it through there.

It took until half time and being six goals down for us to actually take the game on and we looked OK until it was time to score. We lost by 4 goals to a very average team. And whilst it was tough to watch, I think a lot will be gained from this result; I feel we came down here thinking the 4pts were already in the bag.

I'd expect a strong start to the game this Saturday night and would not be surprised if we knocked off North.

Yeah we continued with the switch in the second half but something definitely changed. We had a lot more purpose to our switches instead of just slowly moving the ball around the backline. Makes me think it was an attitude thing yesterday rather than personelle to be honest.

 

[jackess]

Yeah we continued with the switch in the second half but something definitely changed. We had a lot more purpose to our switches instead of just slowly moving the ball around the backline. Makes me think it was an attitude thing yesterday rather than personelle to be honest.

I don't think Melbourne ran as hard as they did in the first half to shut down the switch. Good teams can shut down the switch most of the time unless their opponent has footskills on the level of Hawthorn.

 

[Schraderbrau]

Taking off the Lions hat, trying to look at it as a neutral.....

How in the world is AFL really going to take on the non-traditional AFL states, if the game itself is played in this manner? I think Adelaide and Port had 35 goals between then. The Lions and Dees had 12.

We may be tripe, but I also feel that the game itself is in trouble, if it continues in this manner. Port Vs Adelaide was the exception to the rule this year. Fast flowing, high scoring, exciting to watch, end to end. That style of game is what will appeal to those we want to convert to the game. But - why would anyone be excited by AFL and become a convert, if what is on offer is 12 goals a game?

I don't expect 35 goals a game. But, 7 out of the 9 games featured 25 goals or less. Same the week before. It's more than tough watching your team play like that - its demoralising. But I feel that trouble brews beyond just the form of the Lions.

The better skilled lists are able to beat defensive set ups and score against them. The problem in recent seasons is that the bottom sides have realised that even if they aren't skilled enough to attack effectively, they can still implement pretty effective defensive set ups. Melbourne is a great example because they have been set up to defend quite effectively but are still really poor in the forward half. When two teams that don't have the skills to attack but can defend you end up with a game like Sundays.

The most concerning thing for Brisbane was that there appeared to be no direction. Even the better, more experienced players were moving like that they did not know what to do or where to run. That is troublesome considering we our half way through Leppistch's 2nd season as coach. From here on in they've got to be thinking about getting the gameplan right for next season - in that respect, if there isn't any improvement from here till end of the season the coach has to go imo.

 

[Panthera]

I don't think Melbourne ran as hard as they did in the first half to shut down the switch. Good teams can shut down the switch most of the time unless their opponent has footskills on the level of Hawthorn.

It didn't seem it was a switch we were trying to achieve - not actually sure what it was. We just seemed to be in a set mode to move towards the boundary line.

It's not like we had players at half forward waiting to receive the ball if it entered our attacking half

Mind boggling at times...

 

[lukiuslion]

It didn't seem it was a switch we were trying to achieve - not actually sure what it was. We just seemed to be in a set mode to move towards the boundary line.

It's not like we had players at half forward waiting to receive the ball if it entered our attacking half

Mind boggling at times...

Leppa coaches to each team. He changes what he wants every week depending on who we play, which makes it hard on a young team. The dogs game he constructed some 'kick it along the wings to packs of players' game to limit their ability to tear back through the middle. At times I think we are 'over coached' even from quarter to quarter. Clearly, his direction was 'don't try and blaze up the middle' because of the demons defensive, Roos style game. Can't remember us looking down the guts at all, where as againts the crows and swans we went central in waves and it was awesome. We could have beaten Melbourne had we just played yesterday. But instead we were directed to play this careful, boundary line game, the amount of times we kicked it straight to Gawn on the wing was great.

 

[Sausages]

Leppa could do worse than a variation on a Wallsy....

In 95, before our run to a maiden finals appearance as the Bears, Robert Walls approached the team with about 9-10 weeks to go and said....'you blokes are all safe, in the team etc until season's end.' The players and Wallsy himself has said that the confidence it gave a young group was immense.

Now, back then we were a fringe mathematical of making the 8 and a different group of players as well. But that sentiment for me stands and falls on this point:

Can these guys play as individuals and within a structure?

I'm conceding this loss to pure tank - moving players about shuffleboard style is clearly having a lend. I don't really care for it in all honesty.

I wanna know if players can play Leppa-style. He can coach, he has a game plan and yesterday was just having a tank at an away game. Unacceptable but clearly evident.

I'm with Panthera - I think we are a different prospect this weekend.

 

[PaddleFoot]

I'm starting to think maybe a lack of a forward line and injuries aren't our only problems...

You can't consistently lose top draft picks year on year and hope to build a decent squad with depth. And no one is going to learn in the NEALF.

 

[PaddleFoot]

Taking off the Lions hat, trying to look at it as a neutral.....

How in the world is AFL really going to take on the non-traditional AFL states, if the game itself is played in this manner? I think Adelaide and Port had 35 goals between then. The Lions and Dees had 12.

We may be tripe, but I also feel that the game itself is in trouble, if it continues in this manner. Port Vs Adelaide was the exception to the rule this year. Fast flowing, high scoring, exciting to watch, end to end. That style of game is what will appeal to those we want to convert to the game. But - why would anyone be excited by AFL and become a convert, if what is on offer is 12 goals a game?

I don't expect 35 goals a game. But, 7 out of the 9 games featured 25 goals or less. Same the week before. It's more than tough watching your team play like that - its demoralising. But I feel that trouble brews beyond just the form of the Lions.

Agree - I'm really struggling to watch those games when all the active players could fit in my backyard. We desperately need another Geelong 2007 game style ( remember those turgid Eagles / Swans games ? ) to break open the games. But it seems the only way to contain skilled teams like Hawthorn is a few loose downback and just clog it up hoping for a slingshot. And if you don't have the skill to breakout, we're in for a shocker - sideways and backwards. And Lyon and Roos , who perfected the lockdown ( post flood ) - are still coaching. I suspect we'll have to wait for the Hawk dynasty to move on - I recall the Demons in the late 50's having a stranglehold on the competition and could only be beaten by sheer violence. Port looked OK last year but they've been sussed and the Dogs just don't have the serious onball class. And I don't trust Freo any more now that Pav is cooked. Maybe Tigers ? Anyone please. And yes that Showdown game was what I remember games to be like. Oh the humanity !