Review Round 3, 2023 - Bulldogs vs. Brisbane Lions

Who were your five best players against the Bulldogs?

  • Total voters
    135
  • Poll closed .

Remove this Banner Ad

Tom14 said:
He's not a good enough mark and definitely not a good enough kick. He'd be more of a liability in defence than he currently is in attack.

While he played a bit of time in defence in u18s it wasn't even the majority of championship games from memory - he had a lot of time up forward too.
Click to expand...
Good thing about being a key defender is you don't necessarily need to be a good mark. There's been plenty of excellent defenders who have been effective by just putting their fist through the footy.

Being a key forward though, the ability to clunk marks is much more important.

As for kicking, his field kicking is just as good as the majority of key defenders out there. He's certainly got a more penetrating kick than most of them.
 
As far as cherry picking analysis of players go that's been going on forever. Footy commentators love an incident to latch on to highlight something negative or positive about a player as if they're doing it all the time. They used to do it on World of Sport in the '60's and '70's.

Poor old Kingy says the same stuff about any team going poorly and the same stuff about the ones going well.
 
martinson said:
As far as cherry picking analysis of players go that's been going on forever. Footy commentators love an incident to latch on to highlight something negative or positive about a player as if they're doing it all the time. They used to do it on World of Sport in the '60's and '70's.

Poor old Kingy says the same stuff about any team going poorly and the same stuff about the ones going well.
Click to expand...

Yes but based on some of the posts we have seen here this week, I don't think everyone realises this or at least the extent of it.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Elixuh said:
Yes but based on some of the posts we have seen here this week, I don't think everyone realises this or at least the extent of it.
Click to expand...
I just happened to turn the TV on and whatever the show was he was raving about Freo ,what they bring ,yadda yadda. The usual stuff.

West Cost were legless. Not even 18 fit players to stay on the ground by 3/4 time. Frederick had no one anywhere near him and looked like Usain Bolt.

Kingy and most of the others are always looking to pump someone up or go on about why someone else is so bad. Without any of the critical context of some games where drawing hard and fast conclusions is nonsense.
 
Kingy just said of the Pies.

'I don't know how you stop them ,I really don't '

Kiss of Death.

Collingwood were doing the same thing last year and all these experts were half saying they were fluking it . Nothing's changed except their confidence in the game style has propelled them to a higher level of skill execution and belief.
 
Tom14 said:
I have no issue with the use of data, I have an issue locking the data away and not even opening it up for members of the public to access or buy. I'm sorry, but I don't trust King or Sam Landsberger or others to have done the leg work on this stuff, or have a proper appreciation of basic statistical concepts to then be able to explain and understand it. Data is incredibly useful, data only being provided to the public via a select few forums doesn't mean we get useful data!

Sure there might be some staff involved in preparing the segments but having watched a lot of the stats focused content (e.g. Purefooty with Daniel Hoyne and Kingy), you don't get told the context that goes with the numbers, or the caveats. Without better access to the data, there can't be any good interrogation of the underlying data to try understand it a bit better, or place it in context - which is not done by Kingy in quite a few cases.

The whole AFL and Champion Data's approach to data accessibility is quite frankly embarrassing. The AFL Player Ratings twitter account no longer posts the rankings for each game, because the Champion Data employee who developed it as part of a post-graduate thesis left the company. THis was pre-finals last year. Instead if you want to find it you have to search through the AFL stats page, which itself has got far worse in navigating over the years. You used to be able to easily pull up a lot of relevant stats quite quickly, but its much harder to find interesting stuff (e.g. contested defensive 1v1s).

Its a damning indictment of the league that most of the advanced analytics/tipping models run for things like Squiggle often rely on the AFL Tables website for the raw stats, which as far as anyone can work out is totally maintained by someone in their free time with no remuneration rather than the league website!

In conclusion: data useful but isn't everything, I pay attention to what Kingy gets from Champion data because its one of the only ways to get access to the stats, but it is very frustrating having to because Kingy often doesn't understand what he is being told and says stupid stuff.

For example:



Incredible that Robbo and Joey Montagna nod wonderingly at Kingy's incredible stat that there is an even win-loss record when top 8 teams play each other! These are the people who get access to the stats and we are meant to trust that they understand even basic concepts enough to tell the story correctly?
Click to expand...

A truly incredible statistic. As it so happens, another crazy statistic occurred on the weekend; after the 9 games of football there were exactly 9 winners and 9 losers.
 
Dalions said:
That looks to me as though it has been a directive to play that role.
The problem that I see is that it should have been Lincoln McCarthy out there to run back in and get front and centre if the ball hits the ground not Hippy.
Reverse the roles and put a small out there and the structure looks fine.
Can’t see how that is Hippy’s fault other than that he needs to get back a bit quicker rather than just labouring in.
Click to expand...
What exactly does playing that wide and in no mans land attribute to team success? He's useless out that wide just ball watching. Pissed me off seeing Bruce impact the contests and Hipwood just jogging on the spot watching on.

Awful coaching if that's the case and just as awful for Hipwood to watch his opponent play off him and provide +1s at the contest.
 
SizeMatters said:
What exactly does playing that wide and in no mans land attribute to team success? He's useless out that wide just ball watching. Pissed me off seeing Bruce impact the contests and Hipwood just jogging on the spot watching on.

Awful coaching if that's the case and just as awful for Hipwood to watch his opponent play off him and provide +1s at the contest.
Click to expand...
That was my beef.

Bruce looked like a bona fide CHB controlling the contest.

Because there was no contest.
 
TL;DR - the sky didn't fall on Thursday night.

I've read every post here and in the game day thread, and love the passion from everyone.

I also think that we are even more prone to emotional swings than our footy team 😂

Last week after the Melbourne game my thoughts were that we played super well but there were some areas I wanted to keep an eye on going forward. Some of these chooks came home to roost on Thursday night, but also provided some potentially illuminating material for our coaching group if used correctly.

Unusually for me given I have very high expectations for our team (like a lot of us I guess) I walked away from the game on Thursday night surprisingly upbeat about aspects of our performance and what it might mean for us going forward.

The obvious thing for me was our defence. It was quite outstanding. 34 scoring shots total conceded in our last 2 games is a remarkable effort. More importantly it's been our team defence. A couple of key specific observations:

1. I first noticed this in the Geelong practice match. It looks to me like in midfield we are foregoing the opportunity to put pressure on at the source, and instead bolting back to get into position for zone defence. This is why for those of us not fortunate enough to be at the game, on the TV coverage, all you see is Bulldogs players with possession, apparently unchallenged. The knee jerk reaction is that "oh we can't be bothered defending", when actually it's the reverse. We've all pushed back to defend so we're out of the camera shot. Thus it looks like the Dogs are haphazardly roosting the ball long and aimlessly, when actually that's the only option we've given them. Thus Harris and Payne are able to pick off overhead contested marks with relative ease.

2. On this, I noticed on Thursday night the amount of times Harris and Payne were in the same vicinity on the ball drop. The body work of both was a feature: one would block (legally) for the other, allowing us to take a relatively simple overhead mark. Having multiple talls at the fall of the same ball was a (negative) feature of our forward line play in 2022 and before, but here it's a huge positive, so I can't help but think this is partly due to Jed Adcock's influence.

The other positive actually came out of a negative. Here's the timeline of what became the defining period of the match:

Screenshot_20230403_222353_AFL.jpg

So the Dogs scored 3 goals in literally 4 minutes and 7 seconds, and when you account for the fact the clock stops for 50 seconds after goals, that's 3 goals in a MAXIMUM of 2 minutes and 27 seconds of actual game time.

Can you imagine if we take this 4 minute period, (which included a silly 50 metre penalty and a number of horrible umpiring calls) and drop it into any game last year? I know I can... We drop our bundle, turn to shit, concede another 5 or 6, we're 40+ points behind at half time and the game is basically over.

But to the lads' credit, we dug in on Thursday night. For the next 15 minutes we hugged the boundary line, played the percentages, slowed the play after taking marks, were willing to be tackled with the ball when we knew we wouldn't be penalised, we were happy to walk the ball out of bounds in tackles. Things like that. All the things we wish we'd done in the Richmond game last year. It was bloody smart football. It gently let all the air out of the Bulldogs' balloon, neutralised their crowd, and got us into position to fire another shot.

But that's where the trouble started.

We never fired another shot. For whatever reason, we looked unable to switch gears for the rest of the game. Where we had looked busy, potent and threatening in the first quarter (and should have led by much more than a point at quarter time), our ball movement became stagnant and lifeless. We rarely tried to take on the corridor after that, and I don't think we attempted a single switch either.

And that fed on itself as well; the more our lads expected us to kick up the line, the more it happened, because we all positioned ourselves there.

Now, I'm willing to cut our tall guys a bit of slack here, because unlike the two Melbourne thrashings and the prelim from last year, when we did kick up the line we were rarely outmarked. So they at least competed in the air (maybe the Murray Davis influence?) But when the ball hit the ground was when we had problems, and I think that's been touched on here enough by others for me to skip over here.

So to me, we can bag the efforts of Joe and Eric all we want, and regardless of whether those criticisms are justified, to me a more straightforward solution is to fix our ball movement.

My initial reaction, I think like a few of us, was "oh we need a quarterback down there to set us in the right direction", a la Daniel Rich. But it's pointless relying on Rich given his age - we need others to pick up the slack. Coleman, McKenna, even Wilmot. There's 3 ways to move the ball out of defence: up the line, switching the play or back through the corridor.

(Actually there's a 4th now, kind of a 3A. Teams are now kicking a 45⁰ back into the channel between the centre square and the flank... And then going BACK to the flank with another 45⁰ OR a lateral handball. It opens up a forward running handball receive, and even though it's not as exciting as using the corridor, it still allows you to kick over the contest and set defence at half forward, presenting you with an open forward line, or worst case scenario, a stoppage inside forward 50.)

So I really think the vision from Thursday has the POTENTIAL to be an invaluable training tool for our coaching group with regards to our ball movement, if utilised correctly. It is evident from what I've seen in the games so far that as a group our guys have worked hard on this new style of game over summer, but the defensive side was always going to be much easier to train than the attacking side, and I think that was apparent on Thursday night.

So my knee jerk reaction was "we need to improve our ball movement". Easy right? Truth be told, I have no idea how to do this in practice. But then watching that footage from Kingy on First Crack, it came to me...

Yes, I get that vision is cherry picked, yes, it may not be indicative of the whole match, but let me challenge you with this question... How many times on Thursday night did we see Hipwood and Daniher up beyond the wing, presenting for the ball? I can't remember a single time, and when I saw that footage I understood why.

The expectation of Hipwood to play CHF on both sides of the ground in the manner Kingy suggested is, in my view, a bit short sighted. Is it not surely better to have Hipwood play CHF on one side of the ground, and then have Daniher play CHF on the other? So if we do try to make one of those switches, poor old Hipwood doesn't have to bugger himself running from one side of the ground to the other and back? Instead, Hipwood holds at the point of the centre square on what becomes the "fat side", ready to be an intercepting presence if the opposition tries to exit our 50 on that side.

To me this is an absolute no brainer and I welcome anyone to challenge me on this if there are things I haven't thought through. It should mean Hipwood and Daniher have to run a lot less, reserving their energy for all that good stuff like competing overhead, following up at ground level, and last but not least, being able to work into our defensive half if we are struggling to move the footy.

At the same time, we leave the 50 itself open for Gunston and two of our smalls. This line of thinking isn't new to me... I mentioned most of this in a post I made at the end of 2021, and swapping out McStay for Gunston it's all still relevant as far as I'm concerned.

Point 1 for those who are interested: How do we take the next step to a premiership?

How does this help our ball movement? Well, if one of Hipwood or Daniher do end up on the wing or beyond, they've either dragged their man with them, or they've been let go. Either way it's a win-win: we've got a big fella who has the ball 90-100m from goal who is in a position to handball to our half backs running from behind, OR he's taken his opponent away from his defensive post, messing up their zone, creating space for the other of the two folding in behind him.

This then creates a dilemma for the opposition: do they commit an extra number behind Hipwood but in front of Daniher, cutting off Joe's leading space (which will be around the half forward flank)? If not, fine; we can use either Hipwood or Daniher or both. If so, great; that extra man has to come from somewhere, and that is when we get the chance to chain up using our midfielders through the corridor. The fast lane, if you will.

What all that relies on is blokes being willing to create space for one another, which I've seen in patches (more this year than previously) but still has a long way to go.

I want to finish on something I mentioned last week, about how yes we dominated stoppages against Melbourne, but that I felt it would be hard to sustain, and well it lasted a week.

The fact that so early in the year we got a glimpse of how our game plan stacks up when we do lose stoppages (and it won't be the last time) could (and should) become a blessing in disguise.

What it showed first of all is that defensively, it absolutely did stand up despite conceding first possession. The second thing that happened is that we forced EIGHTY intercepts. In perfect conditions that is an obscene amount. We haven't hit those numbers in goodness knows how long.

So, the key is here, we got PLENTY of opportunities to use the ball, despite losing clearances. Now, we just need to make the most of those opportunities. Which is why I think this loss could yet provide a valuable training tool.

Final thought: had we lost by 14 points playing the same way we played last year, the score might have been something like 97-111. I'd have been more concerned had that been the case. At least on Thursday night, I at least saw the solid foundation of a game plan.

Sure, it was bloody ugly, but that gorgeous 3 storey mansion on top of the hill overlooking the ocean? It started with a pretty damn ugly block of concrete built into the countryside as well.
 
Grasshopper17 said:
TL;DR - the sky didn't fall on Thursday night.

I've read every post here and in the game day thread, and love the passion from everyone.

I also think that we are even more prone to emotional swings than our footy team 😂

Last week after the Melbourne game my thoughts were that we played super well but there were some areas I wanted to keep an eye on going forward. Some of these chooks came home to roost on Thursday night, but also provided some potentially illuminating material for our coaching group if used correctly.

Unusually for me given I have very high expectations for our team (like a lot of us I guess) I walked away from the game on Thursday night surprisingly upbeat about aspects of our performance and what it might mean for us going forward.

The obvious thing for me was our defence. It was quite outstanding. 34 scoring shots total conceded in our last 2 games is a remarkable effort. More importantly it's been our team defence. A couple of key specific observations:

1. I first noticed this in the Geelong practice match. It looks to me like in midfield we are foregoing the opportunity to put pressure on at the source, and instead bolting back to get into position for zone defence. This is why for those of us not fortunate enough to be at the game, on the TV coverage, all you see is Bulldogs players with possession, apparently unchallenged. The knee jerk reaction is that "oh we can't be bothered defending", when actually it's the reverse. We've all pushed back to defend so we're out of the camera shot. Thus it looks like the Dogs are haphazardly roosting the ball long and aimlessly, when actually that's the only option we've given them. Thus Harris and Payne are able to pick off overhead contested marks with relative ease.

2. On this, I noticed on Thursday night the amount of times Harris and Payne were in the same vicinity on the ball drop. The body work of both was a feature: one would block (legally) for the other, allowing us to take a relatively simple overhead mark. Having multiple talls at the fall of the same ball was a (negative) feature of our forward line play in 2022 and before, but here it's a huge positive, so I can't help but think this is partly due to Jed Adcock's influence.

The other positive actually came out of a negative. Here's the timeline of what became the defining period of the match:

View attachment 1649197

So the Dogs scored 3 goals in literally 4 minutes and 7 seconds, and when you account for the fact the clock stops for 50 seconds after goals, that's 3 goals in a MAXIMUM of 2 minutes and 27 seconds of actual game time.

Can you imagine if we take this 4 minute period, (which included a silly 50 metre penalty and a number of horrible umpiring calls) and drop it into any game last year? I know I can... We drop our bundle, turn to s**t, concede another 5 or 6, we're 40+ points behind at half time and the game is basically over.

But to the lads' credit, we dug in on Thursday night. For the next 15 minutes we hugged the boundary line, played the percentages, slowed the play after taking marks, were willing to be tackled with the ball when we knew we wouldn't be penalised, we were happy to walk the ball out of bounds in tackles. Things like that. All the things we wish we'd done in the Richmond game last year. It was bloody smart football. It gently let all the air out of the Bulldogs' balloon, neutralised their crowd, and got us into position to fire another shot.

But that's where the trouble started.

We never fired another shot. For whatever reason, we looked unable to switch gears for the rest of the game. Where we had looked busy, potent and threatening in the first quarter (and should have led by much more than a point at quarter time), our ball movement became stagnant and lifeless. We rarely tried to take on the corridor after that, and I don't think we attempted a single switch either.

And that fed on itself as well; the more our lads expected us to kick up the line, the more it happened, because we all positioned ourselves there.

Now, I'm willing to cut our tall guys a bit of slack here, because unlike the two Melbourne thrashings and the prelim from last year, when we did kick up the line we were rarely outmarked. So they at least competed in the air (maybe the Murray Davis influence?) But when the ball hit the ground was when we had problems, and I think that's been touched on here enough by others for me to skip over here.

So to me, we can bag the efforts of Joe and Eric all we want, and regardless of whether those criticisms are justified, to me a more straightforward solution is to fix our ball movement.

My initial reaction, I think like a few of us, was "oh we need a quarterback down there to set us in the right direction", a la Daniel Rich. But it's pointless relying on Rich given his age - we need others to pick up the slack. Coleman, McKenna, even Wilmot. There's 3 ways to move the ball out of defence: up the line, switching the play or back through the corridor.

(Actually there's a 4th now, kind of a 3A. Teams are now kicking a 45⁰ back into the channel between the centre square and the flank... And then going BACK to the flank with another 45⁰ OR a lateral handball. It opens up a forward running handball receive, and even though it's not as exciting as using the corridor, it still allows you to kick over the contest and set defence at half forward, presenting you with an open forward line, or worst case scenario, a stoppage inside forward 50.)

So I really think the vision from Thursday has the POTENTIAL to be an invaluable training tool for our coaching group with regards to our ball movement, if utilised correctly. It is evident from what I've seen in the games so far that as a group our guys have worked hard on this new style of game over summer, but the defensive side was always going to be much easier to train than the attacking side, and I think that was apparent on Thursday night.

So my knee jerk reaction was "we need to improve our ball movement". Easy right? Truth be told, I have no idea how to do this in practice. But then watching that footage from Kingy on First Crack, it came to me...

Yes, I get that vision is cherry picked, yes, it may not be indicative of the whole match, but let me challenge you with this question... How many times on Thursday night did we see Hipwood and Daniher up beyond the wing, presenting for the ball? I can't remember a single time, and when I saw that footage I understood why.

The expectation of Hipwood to play CHF on both sides of the ground in the manner Kingy suggested is, in my view, a bit short sighted. Is it not surely better to have Hipwood play CHF on one side of the ground, and then have Daniher play CHF on the other? So if we do try to make one of those switches, poor old Hipwood doesn't have to bugger himself running from one side of the ground to the other and back? Instead, Hipwood holds at the point of the centre square on what becomes the "fat side", ready to be an intercepting presence if the opposition tries to exit our 50 on that side.

To me this is an absolute no brainer and I welcome anyone to challenge me on this if there are things I haven't thought through. It should mean Hipwood and Daniher have to run a lot less, reserving their energy for all that good stuff like competing overhead, following up at ground level, and last but not least, being able to work into our defensive half if we are struggling to move the footy.

At the same time, we leave the 50 itself open for Gunston and two of our smalls. This line of thinking isn't new to me... I mentioned most of this in a post I made at the end of 2021, and swapping out McStay for Gunston it's all still relevant as far as I'm concerned.

Point 1 for those who are interested: How do we take the next step to a premiership?

How does this help our ball movement? Well, if one of Hipwood or Daniher do end up on the wing or beyond, they've either dragged their man with them, or they've been let go. Either way it's a win-win: we've got a big fella who has the ball 90-100m from goal who is in a position to handball to our half backs running from behind, OR he's taken his opponent away from his defensive post, messing up their zone, creating space for the other of the two folding in behind him.

This then creates a dilemma for the opposition: do they commit an extra number behind Hipwood but in front of Daniher, cutting off Joe's leading space (which will be around the half forward flank)? If not, fine; we can use either Hipwood or Daniher or both. If so, great; that extra man has to come from somewhere, and that is when we get the chance to chain up using our midfielders through the corridor. The fast lane, if you will.

What all that relies on is blokes being willing to create space for one another, which I've seen in patches (more this year than previously) but still has a long way to go.

I want to finish on something I mentioned last week, about how yes we dominated stoppages against Melbourne, but that I felt it would be hard to sustain, and well it lasted a week.

The fact that so early in the year we got a glimpse of how our game plan stacks up when we do lose stoppages (and it won't be the last time) could (and should) become a blessing in disguise.

What it showed first of all is that defensively, it absolutely did stand up despite conceding first possession. The second thing that happened is that we forced EIGHTY intercepts. In perfect conditions that is an obscene amount. We haven't hit those numbers in goodness knows how long.

So, the key is here, we got PLENTY of opportunities to use the ball, despite losing clearances. Now, we just need to make the most of those opportunities. Which is why I think this loss could yet provide a valuable training tool.

Final thought: had we lost by 14 points playing the same way we played last year, the score might have been something like 97-111. I'd have been more concerned had that been the case. At least on Thursday night, I at least saw the solid foundation of a game plan.

Sure, it was bloody ugly, but that gorgeous 3 storey mansion on top of the hill overlooking the ocean? It started with a pretty damn ugly block of concrete built into the countryside as well.
Click to expand...
I usually don't read every word of really long posts but I did this one, I was transfixed... my thoughts >

WOW! Enlightening and detailed post, thanks Grassy.

If I can boil it down to a sentence I think what you are saying is that we are bedding down our new game style worked on over the pre season, it will take time and there will be some teething problems, we need to be patient.

Your post has given me pause for thought and some new found confidence, I hope you are spot on with your analysis.
 
M Malice said:
I usually don't read every word of really long posts but I did this one, I was transfixed... my thoughts >

WOW! Enlightening and detailed post, thanks Grassy.

If I can boil it down to a sentence I think what you are saying is that we are bedding down our new game style worked on over the pre season, it will take time and there will be some teething problems, we need to be patient.

Your post has given me pause for thought and some new found confidence, I hope you are spot on with your analysis.
Click to expand...
Thanks! Yeah that's my view, but time will tell I guess.

I don't think it's a one week fix anyhow... Hopefully if/when we do get it right we are still somehow in the hunt for a top 4 spot.

If we can't get it right at all by season's end, it is absolutely time to review our coaching setup, because there are plenty of lists in the comp currently doing far more with far less when it comes to playing talent.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Lionheart182 said:
A truly incredible statistic. As it so happens, another crazy statistic occurred on the weekend; after the 9 games of football there were exactly 9 winners and 9 losers.
Click to expand...
Now do week 1! ;)
 
Tom14 said:
I feel like there was another one with similar late game edits from the freo game when we left frederick open a bit in the last. Which was fair enough, you could see that he hadn't faced any defensive attention at all... if you ignored that we were down in hte game and getting belted in clearances, and were trying to generate some movement by having zork start at centre half back and sprint right into the stoppage to try pick up a handball receive. But not having that context at all made it pretty misleading.

There are some good segments where they show film and you learn something, but when it is your team and you watch them in person multiple times a year you do start to appreciate what is left out of the analysis.
Click to expand...

The Frederick one was doubly moronic because I remember that game. The other reason he was wide open was because Rich was on him and 30 metres down the field having just been involved in getting the ball forward, while Frederick was being lazy and not even bothering to pressure him (happened at least twice for goals, maybe more). The problem was that we then turned it over and the ball sailed back over Rich's head - looked bad, but the problem was losing the ball. Nothing to do with Frederick and how he was defended, he just got rewarded for being lazy and letting his teammates face excess numbers - if anything, there's a fair chance he also copped a bollocking from his coaches in team review despite scoring goals.
 
Grasshopper17 said:
Thanks! Yeah that's my view, but time will tell I guess.

I don't think it's a one week fix anyhow... Hopefully if/when we do get it right we are still somehow in the hunt for a top 4 spot.

If we can't get it right at all by season's end, it is absolutely time to review our coaching setup, because there are plenty of lists in the comp currently doing far more with far less when it comes to playing talent.
Click to expand...
Upon reflection after last week, I can't help but agree about the game. There were definitely positives and overall their effort wasn't non-existant like against Port.

Our defensive structure broke down a few times, and that was probably due to us trying to press up a bit too hard to the man with the ball and then getting exposed. This could have been falling back into previous gameplan styles, or trying to get something to happen in a game that really didn't flow naturally for us.

Interesting thoughts on the forward line structure, there is clearly something there that needs to be worked on. It makes no sense to have our tallest and slowest player, sitting on the fat side of the forward 50 contest. Surely you want a Cameron or McCarthy, who can easily lead into all that space (as well as defensively run and protect it) sitting on that side of the forward structure.

Personally I would like to see McCarthy and Cameron be given directives of only crumb marking contests, especially once Rayner got put down there as he jumps at everything.
 
Dalions said:
That looks to me as though it has been a directive to play that role.
The problem that I see is that it should have been Lincoln McCarthy out there to run back in and get front and centre if the ball hits the ground not Hippy.
Reverse the roles and put a small out there and the structure looks fine.
Can’t see how that is Hippy’s fault other than that he needs to get back a bit quicker rather than just labouring in.
Click to expand...
The issue is that he's not forcing his man to cover him, the sort of thing that creates those numbers mismatches I've been highlighting lately.
Creating separation is good, it's a thing we've been missing. But you needing to be creating a separation in a useful direction, so you drag your man with you, not leave him to create an outnumber while you hope for a 100m kick.

Maybe it's a change we've tried to make to create more separation and we just haven't got it right just yet.
 
Jivlain said:
The issue is that he's not forcing his man to cover him, the sort of thing that creates those numbers mismatches I've been highlighting lately.
Creating separation is good, it's a thing we've been missing. But you needing to be creating a separation in a useful direction, so you drag your man with you, not leave him to create an outnumber while you hope for a 100m kick.

Maybe it's a change we've tried to make to create more separation and we just haven't got it right just yet.
Click to expand...

Quicker ball movement is the key
 
People hammering Joe (yes he had a couple of brain fades) and Eric but Naughton didn't do much in that game as the service both ends was horrid.

McStay was our contested mark last year. With him gone and a lot of defensive heat and lack of rebound run in the demons/bulldogs games we have struggled to get clean ball into the forward line. So Joe and Eric are just parked under crappy long bombs. Doesn't help that Hugh and Link are a bit off the pace.
  • I think we need to just get better linkage out of mid less panicked kicks to no one
  • Get the ball coming into the forward line lower to the leading mark and not just to Gunston who they seem to be trying to pick out a lot to the detriment of our other forwards
Fixtures ahead look good. Just need calm heads and keep the pressure we had in that demons game.
 
I think people overestimate how many contested marks are actually taken by players in a full season.
Below Geelong the premiers, and Lions for season 2022.
FORWARDS

2022 Brisbane Total Contested Marks Leaders (Minimum 5 Games Played)​
RankNameGamesTotal
1​
22​
29​
2​
24​
28​
3​
19​
25​
4​
18​
19​
5​
22​
18​
6​
17​
15​
6​
25​
15​
6​
24​
15​
9​
21​
14​
9​
25​
14​
11​
12​
11​
12​
24​
9​
12​
23​
9​
12​
18​
9​
15​
25​
7​

2022 Geelong Total Contested Marks Leaders (Minimum 5 Games Played)​
RankNameGamesTotal
1​
25​
42​
2​
23​
36​
3​
24​
27​
4​
20​
20​
4​
24​
20​
6​
23​
15​
7​
20​
14​
7​
18​
14​
7​
21​
14​
10​
17​
10​
11​
24​
6​
 
Section 5 said:
I think people overestimate how many contested marks are actually taken by players in a full season.
Below Geelong the premiers, and Lions for season 2022.
FORWARDS

2022 Brisbane Total Contested Marks Leaders (Minimum 5 Games Played)​
RankNameGamesTotal
1​
22​
29​
2​
24​
28​
3​
19​
25​
4​
18​
19​
5​
22​
18​
6​
17​
15​
6​
25​
15​
6​
24​
15​
9​
21​
14​
9​
25​
14​
11​
12​
11​
12​
24​
9​
12​
23​
9​
12​
18​
9​
15​
25​
7​

2022 Geelong Total Contested Marks Leaders (Minimum 5 Games Played)​
RankNameGamesTotal
1​
25​
42​
2​
23​
36​
3​
24​
27​
4​
20​
20​
4​
24​
20​
6​
23​
15​
7​
20​
14​
7​
18​
14​
7​
21​
14​
10​
17​
10​
11​
24​
6​
Click to expand...
Who is leading this year so far?
Feels like Oscar to me?
 
Section 5 said:
I think people overestimate how many contested marks are actually taken by players in a full season.
Below Geelong the premiers, and Lions for season 2022.
FORWARDS

2022 Brisbane Total Contested Marks Leaders (Minimum 5 Games Played)​
RankNameGamesTotal
1​
22​
29​
2​
24​
28​
3​
19​
25​
4​
18​
19​
5​
22​
18​
6​
17​
15​
6​
25​
15​
6​
24​
15​
9​
21​
14​
9​
25​
14​
11​
12​
11​
12​
24​
9​
12​
23​
9​
12​
18​
9​
15​
25​
7​

2022 Geelong Total Contested Marks Leaders (Minimum 5 Games Played)​
RankNameGamesTotal
1​
25​
42​
2​
23​
36​
3​
24​
27​
4​
20​
20​
4​
24​
20​
6​
23​
15​
7​
20​
14​
7​
18​
14​
7​
21​
14​
10​
17​
10​
11​
24​
6​
Click to expand...
Did they only have 11 players that took contested marks?

Our top 11 took 203 and out total was 237.
Their 11 took 218.

But breaking it down for the top two in each team (the third placed plus one both lists are relatively even)

Hawkins and de Koining at FF and fb took a combined 78.

mcStay and Andrews took a combined 57.

There's a premiership difference in two of the spine players.
 
KissKiss said:
Or Harris
Click to expand...
Harris appears to be deliberately going for his marks again this year which is awesome.
He has seemingly been low in confidence the last couple of years in that area.
 
Dalions said:
Who is leading this year so far?
Feels like Oscar to me?
Click to expand...
Very small sample size
Don't forget rucks are always positioned around where the contest is.

2023 Brisbane Total Contested Marks Leaders​
RankNameGamesTotal
1​
3​
6​
2​
3​
5​
3​
3​
3​
4​
3​
2​
4​
3​
2​
4​
3​
2​
7​
2​
1​
7​
2​
1​
7​
3​
1​
7​
3​
1​
7​
3​
1​
7​
3​
1​
7​
3​
1​
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Review Round 3, 2023 - Bulldogs vs. Brisbane Lions

Similar threads

ZoBlitz
  • Poll
Women's Footy Round 4, 2024 - Brisbane Lions vs. Western Bulldogs
2 3
Replies
68
Views
1K
Elixuh
Elixuh
ZoBlitz
  • Poll
Women's Footy Round 3, 2024 - Brisbane Lions vs. Collingwood
2
Replies
48
Views
1K
Perrip
P
ZoBlitz
  • Poll
Women's Footy Round 6, 2024 - Carlton vs. Brisbane Lions
2 3
Replies
52
Views
1K
Tom14
Tom14
ZoBlitz
  • Poll
Review Round 13, 2024 - Western Bulldogs vs. Brisbane Lions
5 6 7 8 9
Replies
223
Views
10K
Nathan Barley
Nathan Barley
ZoBlitz
  • Locked
Game Day Round 13, 2024 - Western Bulldogs vs. Brisbane Lions
19 20 21 22 23
Replies
556
Views
10K
dlanod
dlanod
ZoBlitz
  • Poll
Women's Footy Round 5, 2024 - Brisbane Lions vs. Adelaide
2 3
Replies
55
Views
1K
BrainOfMorbius
B
ZoBlitz
  • Poll
Women's Footy Round 9, 2024 - Brisbane Lions vs. Sydney
2 3 4
Replies
86
Views
2K
AFLQLD
AFLQLD
Back
Top