Review Round 16, 2023 - Brisbane Lions vs. Richmond

[BRAB]

But I can walk there BRAB.

I’m honestly really jealous right now.

 

[M Malice]

I’m honestly really jealous right now.

Do you want to be a 63 year old bald, wrinkly, stickman who lives 3km from the Gabba?

 

[CarterS]

Richo lost a bet with Hodge on Channel 7 and had to buy a Lions membership.

 

[Dalions]

I’m honestly really jealous right now.

But you can walk to HBS.

 

[Gadzorks]

It’s obviously selfish but the Thursday games really suck for people who have to travel a fair way to the Gabba. Hope they keep it to one or two a year max.

We didn't go. Got about half our seats filled, and thought there was going to be more.

Love other teams Thursday night, don't love the lions in that slot.

 

[Grasshopper17]

It will be hard to argue for the 3 tall forward line now IMO. I think tonight also shows why we should be bringing a runner as sub. Lohman would’ve been a handy sub tonight IMO. I think so used to the 3 key forward line the coaches are forgetting that we will still be able to function effectively with 1 + Rayner or Charlie playing a more key forward type role

I'd agree with Rayner. Could not disagree more RE Charlie. If he needs to play as a contested marking forward we are in a lot of strife. Needing him to play that role will take us back to 2019 when in big games late in the season it looked very much Charlie or bust. We need to be better than that... And we ARE better than that.

On the broader strategy tho... I really want the 3 tall forward line to function... I feel it has so many benefits... It makes it harder for opposition talls to zone off and intercept mark. It allows us to bring Hipwood/Daniher up to the wings to provide a contested marking option if we're struggling to move the ball from our back half, while still holding a deeper marking target.

BUT I now concede that playing that extra small forward instead looks to be aiding our defence considerably, both from pressure (on-ball) and structure (behind the ball) perspectives. We were quite outstanding defensively for 3 quarters, but then in the last quarter, when Fort came into the game, yes we won the quarter on the scoreboard but we had 6 scoring shots yet conceded 7.

So Thursday night's game has finally swayed me towards the 2 tall forward setup.

This means the next thing we have to get right is our aerial contest work ahead of the ball. Against St Kilda for 3 quarters, and again on Thursday night, their defenders took many more intercept marks than we had conceded in previous games.

This didn't hurt us against St Kilda or Richmond, as our team defence set up superbly to stop any rebound in its tracks. But give the ball in those positions to Lever/May/D. Moore/Aliir, and the outcome may not be as favourable.

For those of us who are still struggling to understand why we make Fort the sub, this is the crux of it. If we are conceding this many intercept marks with 2 tall forwards out on the ground, what if one of them, or Oscar, gets injured? What if we all of a sudden only have 1? How do we move the ball? How do we stop them suddenly cutting off ALL our long kicks forward (and we do this a LOT)?

So this is where we need to take our run from behind and handball receives up another notch still, avoiding the need to kick long to these contests, or at least make sure that if we do so, it's to a defence that is not properly set up. If we can't do that, can our smaller guys compete better in the air? Can we block better for our tall guys, so they aren't competing against 2 in the air?

If we can start doing some or all of these things, it opens up all sorts of exciting things we can do with our line-up that we discuss here, like making Lohmann or Zorko or Ah Chee or a similar player the sub. But while we concede the number of intercept marks we conceded on Thursday, we back ourselves into the corner of needing Fort, or another tall, to be the sub.

 

[Grasshopper17]

Something I loved tonight was the second efforts and 1%ers. Coleman and Ah Chee especially, so many times would just tap the ball forward to advantage (usually Ashcroft lmao) and generate an inside 50 out of NOTHING. The entire team was humming tonight. If we can capture that essence come finals time we’ll be there on the big day no question.

The best one I saw was an effort by Dev out on one of the flanks. I think he went to handball or kick to someone, but completely made a mess of it. Resulted in a turnover, but didn't drop his head for a second. Chased after the ball, won it back 30m away and then made sure to find a team mate. 2nd quarter I think it was. Pretty inspirational stuff and we haven't always seen that from our midfield.

 

[Dalions]

The best one I saw was an effort by Dev out on one of the flanks. I think he went to handball or kick to someone, but completely made a mess of it. Resulted in a turnover, but didn't drop his head for a second. Chased after the ball, won it back 30m away and then made sure to find a team mate. 2nd quarter I think it was. Pretty inspirational stuff and we haven't always seen that from our midfield.

Didn’t notice that one at the game but did on replay.
Dev was intent on making up for his mistake. It was a great effort.

 

[martinson]

I'd agree with Rayner. Could not disagree more RE Charlie. If he needs to play as a contested marking forward we are in a lot of strife. Needing him to play that role will take us back to 2019 when in big games late in the season it looked very much Charlie or bust. We need to be better than that... And we ARE better than that.

On the broader strategy tho... I really want the 3 tall forward line to function... I feel it has so many benefits... It makes it harder for opposition talls to zone off and intercept mark. It allows us to bring Hipwood/Daniher up to the wings to provide a contested marking option if we're struggling to move the ball from our back half, while still holding a deeper marking target.

BUT I now concede that playing that extra small forward instead looks to be aiding our defence considerably, both from pressure (on-ball) and structure (behind the ball) perspectives. We were quite outstanding defensively for 3 quarters, but then in the last quarter, when Fort came into the game, yes we won the quarter on the scoreboard but we had 6 scoring shots yet conceded 7.

So Thursday night's game has finally swayed me towards the 2 tall forward setup.

This means the next thing we have to get right is our aerial contest work ahead of the ball. Against St Kilda for 3 quarters, and again on Thursday night, their defenders took many more intercept marks than we had conceded in previous games.

This didn't hurt us against St Kilda or Richmond, as our team defence set up superbly to stop any rebound in its tracks. But give the ball in those positions to Lever/May/D. Moore/Aliir, and the outcome may not be as favourable.

For those of us who are still struggling to understand why we make Fort the sub, this is the crux of it. If we are conceding this many intercept marks with 2 tall forwards out on the ground, what if one of them, or Oscar, gets injured? What if we all of a sudden only have 1? How do we move the ball? How do we stop them suddenly cutting off ALL our long kicks forward (and we do this a LOT)?

So this is where we need to take our run from behind and handball receives up another notch still, avoiding the need to kick long to these contests, or at least make sure that if we do so, it's to a defence that is not properly set up. If we can't do that, can our smaller guys compete better in the air? Can we block better for our tall guys, so they aren't competing against 2 in the air?

If we can start doing some or all of these things, it opens up all sorts of exciting things we can do with our line-up that we discuss here, like making Lohmann or Zorko or Ah Chee or a similar player the sub. But while we concede the number of intercept marks we conceded on Thursday, we back ourselves into the corner of needing Fort, or another tall, to be the sub.

I'm not jumping to any conclusions re a forward set up that did or didn't work for a quarter or two on the basis of a few stats against mediocre opposition . The 2 ruck set up is something that has stood the test of time in big games at the MCG where a fresh ruckman in the last and marking targets up forward really become more crucial.

We need to treat each game on its merits and what the opposition looks like. Personally I like having the 2 rucks and I don't think it's to any great detriment to the rest of our game.

 

[Dalions]

I'm not jumping to any conclusions re a forward set up that did or didn't work for a quarter or two on the basis of a few stats against mediocre opposition . The 2 ruck set up is something that has stood the test of time in big games at the MCG where a fresh ruckman in the last and marking targets up forward really become more crucial.

We need to treat each game on its merits and what the opposition looks like. Personally I like having the 2 rucks and I don't think it's to any great detriment to the rest of our game.

Which is probably why a ruck to sub in the last is not a bad ploy.
As long as our mids are still performing well in the centre of the ground and creating enough opportunity and inside 50’s.
I personally think there has been evidence in all 3 games that when the sub has been made the forward defensive system has broke down to some extent.
Which is why I am definitely on the wagon for the 2 tall set up but I am also happy to stick with Fort as the sub.

 

[Dalions]

With all of the talk about Tim Taranto

14

Tim Taranto

Age

26

Ht

188cm

Wt

87kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

22.3

5star

K

12.8

5star

HB

9.5

5star

M

3.6

4star

T

5.6

5star

CL

4.1

5star

D

17.0

4star

K

12.0

5star

HB

5.0

3star

M

1.5

2star

T

3.0

4star

CL

5.5

5star

D

15.6

4star

K

7.6

3star

HB

8.0

5star

M

1.8

2star

T

4.0

5star

CL

2.2

4star

this year,
I would still take High McCluggage every day of the week.

 

[3KZ is Football]

I'd agree with Rayner. Could not disagree more RE Charlie. If he needs to play as a contested marking forward we are in a lot of strife. Needing him to play that role will take us back to 2019 when in big games late in the season it looked very much Charlie or bust. We need to be better than that... And we ARE better than that.

On the broader strategy tho... I really want the 3 tall forward line to function... I feel it has so many benefits... It makes it harder for opposition talls to zone off and intercept mark. It allows us to bring Hipwood/Daniher up to the wings to provide a contested marking option if we're struggling to move the ball from our back half, while still holding a deeper marking target.

BUT I now concede that playing that extra small forward instead looks to be aiding our defence considerably, both from pressure (on-ball) and structure (behind the ball) perspectives. We were quite outstanding defensively for 3 quarters, but then in the last quarter, when Fort came into the game, yes we won the quarter on the scoreboard but we had 6 scoring shots yet conceded 7.

So Thursday night's game has finally swayed me towards the 2 tall forward setup.

This means the next thing we have to get right is our aerial contest work ahead of the ball. Against St Kilda for 3 quarters, and again on Thursday night, their defenders took many more intercept marks than we had conceded in previous games.

This didn't hurt us against St Kilda or Richmond, as our team defence set up superbly to stop any rebound in its tracks. But give the ball in those positions to Lever/May/D. Moore/Aliir, and the outcome may not be as favourable.

For those of us who are still struggling to understand why we make Fort the sub, this is the crux of it. If we are conceding this many intercept marks with 2 tall forwards out on the ground, what if one of them, or Oscar, gets injured? What if we all of a sudden only have 1? How do we move the ball? How do we stop them suddenly cutting off ALL our long kicks forward (and we do this a LOT)?

So this is where we need to take our run from behind and handball receives up another notch still, avoiding the need to kick long to these contests, or at least make sure that if we do so, it's to a defence that is not properly set up. If we can't do that, can our smaller guys compete better in the air? Can we block better for our tall guys, so they aren't competing against 2 in the air?

If we can start doing some or all of these things, it opens up all sorts of exciting things we can do with our line-up that we discuss here, like making Lohmann or Zorko or Ah Chee or a similar player the sub. But while we concede the number of intercept marks we conceded on Thursday, we back ourselves into the corner of needing Fort, or another tall, to be the sub.

I think we make tactical decisions based on the players we have and their capacity to execute a game plan. I’m sure we would use a three tall forward line if Daniher and Hipwood were joined by Todd Marshall or Brody Mihocek but we can’t when the third tall option is Jack Gunston. Our forward line functioned with McStay as the third tall because he had a defensive game and would run and tackle, he brought pressure to bear. Gunston has demonstrated no capacity to apply forward line pressure and his inclusion opened us up because his man could stroll off him. This is why our current two tall forward line is working, because the smaller player(s) replacing Gunston can all tackle and run. Ah Chee should come straight back in after his concussion protocol is completed.

 

[Section 5]

I'd agree with Rayner. Could not disagree more RE Charlie. If he needs to play as a contested marking forward we are in a lot of strife. Needing him to play that role will take us back to 2019 when in big games late in the season it looked very much Charlie or bust. We need to be better than that... And we ARE better than that.

On the broader strategy tho... I really want the 3 tall forward line to function... I feel it has so many benefits... It makes it harder for opposition talls to zone off and intercept mark. It allows us to bring Hipwood/Daniher up to the wings to provide a contested marking option if we're struggling to move the ball from our back half, while still holding a deeper marking target.

BUT I now concede that playing that extra small forward instead looks to be aiding our defence considerably, both from pressure (on-ball) and structure (behind the ball) perspectives. We were quite outstanding defensively for 3 quarters, but then in the last quarter, when Fort came into the game, yes we won the quarter on the scoreboard but we had 6 scoring shots yet conceded 7.

So Thursday night's game has finally swayed me towards the 2 tall forward setup.

This means the next thing we have to get right is our aerial contest work ahead of the ball. Against St Kilda for 3 quarters, and again on Thursday night, their defenders took many more intercept marks than we had conceded in previous games.

This didn't hurt us against St Kilda or Richmond, as our team defence set up superbly to stop any rebound in its tracks. But give the ball in those positions to Lever/May/D. Moore/Aliir, and the outcome may not be as favourable.

For those of us who are still struggling to understand why we make Fort the sub, this is the crux of it. If we are conceding this many intercept marks with 2 tall forwards out on the ground, what if one of them, or Oscar, gets injured? What if we all of a sudden only have 1? How do we move the ball? How do we stop them suddenly cutting off ALL our long kicks forward (and we do this a LOT)?

So this is where we need to take our run from behind and handball receives up another notch still, avoiding the need to kick long to these contests, or at least make sure that if we do so, it's to a defence that is not properly set up. If we can't do that, can our smaller guys compete better in the air? Can we block better for our tall guys, so they aren't competing against 2 in the air?

If we can start doing some or all of these things, it opens up all sorts of exciting things we can do with our line-up that we discuss here, like making Lohmann or Zorko or Ah Chee or a similar player the sub. But while we concede the number of intercept marks we conceded on Thursday, we back ourselves into the corner of needing Fort, or another tall, to be the sub.

Some good points regarding 2 v 3 forward talls.
In my opinion a good 3rd tall is the best set up when one of your KPF does ruck relief.
However, Gunston has not provided what we needed from our 3rd tall to date. You can only work with what players you have.
The selection call was made, and Rayner has played that role the last 2 wins v Saints and Tigers.
We did play Fort as the 3rd tall v Swans but in my opinion, rucks are not as effective as a true 3rd tall but do come with other benefits.

The next test is the Demons, and it will be interesting to see if they stick with Rayner (3rd tall) that has worked well for 2 games against reasonable opposition.

Rayner has had a couple of "almost " games and this week he should get rewarded goal wise for his efforts.
I hope Rayner kicks 3 plus this week to give him confidence (goal kicking wise) going forward.

We have looked a faster side with a two forward tall setup but overall is that why we look faster?
I think it is a combination of our whole team performance that looks quicker starting with our defenders.
The midfield and wings are also giving us that drive forward, and we look quicker in those positions too.

 

[Grasshopper17]

I'm not jumping to any conclusions re a forward set up that did or didn't work for a quarter or two on the basis of a few stats against mediocre opposition . The 2 ruck set up is something that has stood the test of time in big games at the MCG where a fresh ruckman in the last and marking targets up forward really become more crucial.

We need to treat each game on its merits and what the opposition looks like. Personally I like having the 2 rucks and I don't think it's to any great detriment to the rest of our game.

I think we make tactical decisions based on the players we have and their capacity to execute a game plan. I’m sure we would use a three tall forward line if Daniher and Hipwood were joined by Todd Marshall or Brody Mihocek but we can’t when the third tall option is Jack Gunston. Our forward line functioned with McStay as the third tall because he had a defensive game and would run and tackle, he brought pressure to bear. Gunston has demonstrated no capacity to apply forward line pressure and his inclusion opened us up because his man could stroll off him. This is why our current two talk forward line is working, because the smaller player(s) replacing Gunston can all tackle and run. Ah Chee should come straight back in after his concussion protocol is completed.

I think you both make valid points. I'd still like to see Fullarton trialled in the role at some stage in the regular season, once he gets back to fitness. Sadly we are running out of time now for him I think. The Geelong/Suns fortnight probably looms as the most appropriate, but he may need to get some game time in the VFL first, which would push his AFL availability into the last month of the season. And I don't want to see us experimenting or flirting with our form by that point.

 

[MSB ROYS]

Just re-watched the game. We were good but Richmond were very average. Many of their players seem to have checked out of this game 5 min in.

 

[Nathan Barley]

I think we could be smarter playing 2 rucks and 2 tall forwards.

Don't give Fort 80% TOG. Drop it back to 60-70%, then give Oscar a rest in the third befoee subbing out Fort

I think we need a proper second ruck against most teams.

 

[CarterS]

Just re-watched the game. We were good but Richmond were very average. Many of their players seem to have checked out of this game 5 min in.

Bit of chat that the flu Dusty had impacted half the team.

 

[BrainOfMorbius]

Bit of chat that the flu Dusty had impacted half the team.

Think that might be Tiger fans casting about for excuses and explanations

 

[Grasshopper17]

Well if they did have it you wouldn't surprised if some of our lads come down with something this week. Time will tell I guess.

 

[Rosscoe_666]

Lester’s running ability has always been a huge asset. What we are seeing now from Lester has always been part of his game. It’s not like he has suddenly worked the game out at 30 years of age. I am rapt that people have stopped their lazy group thinking and have realised that his gut running capacity is huge and the fact that he is putting in efforts like last night is testament to his desire and leadership. It has been a shame for Lester that Fagan has always rated others in front of him, but a joy to see how he has established himself once again. So what has made the difference for Lester this year? It is the return to stellar form by Andrews and the emergence of Payne for one. Secondly, playing alongside McKenna, Coleman and Wilmot means that the backline has changed and developed greater rebound capacity. It also means that we have other players who can compete effectively for ground ball. In the past, a backline with Adams, Gardiner and Rich was really hampered by their lack of ability to contest for the ball on the deck. That job used to fall to Lester in that line up and he struggled to carry it on his own. The other thing that has helped Lester shine this year is that he has been able to bring our defense together by directing traffic and making our backline cohesive. We are now functioning defensively better than we have since our rise in 2019 and when the defence looks good, so do individual defenders.

Ha

Lester’s running ability has always been a huge asset. What we are seeing now from Lester has always been part of his game. It’s not like he has suddenly worked the game out at 30 years of age. I am rapt that people have stopped their lazy group thinking and have realised that his gut running capacity is huge and the fact that he is putting in efforts like last night is testament to his desire and leadership. It has been a shame for Lester that Fagan has always rated others in front of him, but a joy to see how he has established himself once again. So what has made the difference for Lester this year? It is the return to stellar form by Andrews and the emergence of Payne for one. Secondly, playing alongside McKenna, Coleman and Wilmot means that the backline has changed and developed greater rebound capacity. It also means that we have other players who can compete effectively for ground ball. In the past, a backline with Adams, Gardiner and Rich was really hampered by their lack of ability to contest for the ball on the deck. That job used to fall to Lester in that line up and he struggled to carry it on his own. The other thing that has helped Lester shine this year is that he has been able to bring our defense together by directing traffic and making our backline cohesive. We are now functioning defensively better than we have since our rise in 2019 and when the defence looks good, so do individual defenders.

Hand up, I've been a constant and severe Lester critic his entire senior career. This year has been a revelation (other than last week's game, where he was pretty ordinary). I was dumbfounded that Fages played him on Pickett, who I figured would leave Ryan in roadrunner-dust, but Lester didn't try to outpace him; just stopped him at every turn. An impressive game, although not enough to get my votes. Connor McKenna got my backline award this round

 

[Section 5]

I think we could be smarter playing 2 rucks and 2 tall forwards.

Don't give Fort 80% TOG. Drop it back to 60-70%, then give Oscar a rest in the third befoee subbing out Fort

I think we need a proper second ruck against most teams.

It is a selection quandary.
Which way do you go and how do you use that player.
Who your opposition is that week also comes into the equation.
Injuries can also change the selection process.
Then would the team gel better if you stick to just one option?

One thing is an extra ruck usually makes the team a little slower unless that ruck is a Gawn or Grundy type.
So, bringing in a ruck usually results in a small forward missing out.
Last week that would have been Ah Chee, The previous week it most likely would have been Dev as he played forward.

I am not against playing two rucks but at present it appears the club favors Jo as ruck relief.
But its early days going with only Jo (ruck relief), Hippy + Rayner.

 

[3KZ is Football]

Ha

Hand up, I've been a constant and severe Lester critic his entire senior career. This year has been a revelation (other than last week's game, where he was pretty ordinary). I was dumbfounded that Fages played him on Pickett, who I figured would leave Ryan in roadrunner-dust, but Lester didn't try to outpace him; just stopped him at every turn. An impressive game, although not enough to get my votes. Connor McKenna got my backline award this round

Happy to see another convert.

 

[martinson]

We get away with Daniher sharing ruck duties against the weaker clubs but against strong teams who have 2 rucks in finals or finals type games they'll exploit the way he tries to ruck now that they've had a good look at it this year. The games where Oscar has been fresh in the last quarter has given us a good advantage.

These things are always a trade off. You get something ,you lose a bit of something else. I think we had our best 23 out there this week bar Zorko . The only dominant team of any year in recent memory who went with predominantly one ruck was Richmond in 2017 when Griggs was a total surprise packet as a support for Nankervis. Last year Geelong had Stanley and Blicavs ,with De Koning who can also ruck ,despite having a relatively robust forward line where Hawkins takes a large share of forward ruck duties.

 

[briztoon]

We get away with Daniher sharing ruck duties against the weaker clubs but against strong teams who have 2 rucks in finals or finals type games they'll exploit the way he tries to ruck now that they've had a good look at it this year. The games where Oscar has been fresh in the last quarter has given us a good advantage.

These things are always a trade off. You get something ,you lose a bit of something else. I think we had our best 23 out there this week bar Zorko . The only dominant team of any year in recent memory who went with predominantly one ruck was Richmond in 2017 when Griggs was a total surprise packet as a support for Nankervis. Last year Geelong had Stanley and Blicavs ,with De Koning who can also ruck ,despite having a relatively robust forward line where Hawkins takes a large share of forward ruck duties.

One thing I’ve noticed when we’ve made the substitution and brought Fort on. When we have either Fort or McInerney playing forward, the ball transitions much more easily out of our defensive 50.

I’m really reluctant to go to a two ruck set up, or in a game where it’s still close late, I’d be really nervous if we substituted out a running player for a ruck.

 

[martinson]

One thing I’ve noticed when we’ve made the substitution and brought Fort on. When we have either Fort or McInerney playing forward, the ball transitions much more easily out of our defensive 50.

I’m really reluctant to go to a two ruck set up, or in a game where it’s still close late, I’d be really nervous if we substituted out a running player for a ruck.

I can see that's an issue. But a bigger issue to me is just having one guy there all day doing all the work or if for instance he got injured then we'd be in real trouble.

Teams have played 2 rucks forever and not lost their run out of defensive 50 but if that's something that particularly applies to us on the limited sample then we have to get a bit creative with how we structure our set up and bench interchange. Lots of big games I recall particularly finals where a second ruck has been an advantage late in games. Fort coming in cold for one quarter when he's not going to ruck is asking a lot of him I agree. I actually thought he was ok on Thursday ,but of course everyone was.