Review Round 5, 2024 - Melbourne vs. Brisbane Lions

[buttermuffs]

What is driving me nuts is that we also have played 3 games in 13 days.

Nah in 14 days. Thursday against the Pies, Friday against the Roos and then Thursday again last night.

 

[Jivlain]

How do we explain the utter turnaround in our tackling game? That was unreal last night.

Loved the tendency from Kai et al to respond to an attempted fend off by just keeping coming

 

[p4p1]

Nah in 14 days. Thursday against the Pies, Friday against the Roos and then Thursday again last night.

I could counter that by saying they had a 7 day break while we only had a 6. I just think the 3 games in 13 days has been massively overblown. I’m sure in the past we, or even better WCE or Freo have had a Sunday, Saturday, Friday run of games with 6 day breaks or similar but with more travel.

 

[Happy_Neale]

I could counter that by saying they had a 7 day break while we only had a 6. I just think the 3 games in 13 days has been massively overblown. I’m sure in the past we, or even better WCE or Freo have had a Sunday, Saturday, Friday run of games with 6 day breaks or similar but with more travel.

Didn’t they also stay in Adelaide for a couple of weeks? We went Brisbane/Adelaide/Brisbane/Melbourne in the same stretch

 

[Brett C]

The thing I want to know about Answerth is how has he improve his disposal so much? Many, quite rightly, used to point out you had your heart in your mouth when he was kicking. I have noticed all season how much he has improved. Hid disposal used to stick out like a sore thumb. McKenna will have to start as the sub as Answerth is 'undropable' on present form.

Could some one find his season stats in this regard?

Lester reminds me of Bruce Doull: cool under pressure. rarely loses a one on one and uses the ball beautifully!!!!!

It’s better but he is still good for 4-5 really poor kicks/handballs a game

 

[Dalions]

Nah in 14 days. Thursday against the Pies, Friday against the Roos and then Thursday again last night.

I would have thought 3 in 13 would be pretty common in the AFL these days.

 

[MSB ROYS]

I would have thought 3 in 13 would be pretty common in the AFL these days.

Not easy to play marquee Thursday and Friday night games without a shorter break.

 

[Viceregal]

When I went to bed on game night at half time I mentioned I was going to check the score in the morning. Instead I left the game thread open and first up read the rest of the game day thread to keep in with the awareness of the game as it unfolded ... only once I had finished the game day thread did I check the score.

Thinking I might need therapy or something!

 

[McIvor]

I just don’t see how that could be the case. I think a good lawyer rips that argument to pieces.

Either do I but Gerard Whately was adamant saying that the tribunal rules have changed so that clubs in Brisbanes position could not use a tackle or act as precedence or even reference it in a defence citing that only acts graded by the MRO could be used as precedence. It’s farcical I agree but that’s what they said. I mean surely a defence should be use anything on an AFL field as a precedence but they reckon you can’t.

 

[McIvor]

I could counter that by saying they had a 7 day break while we only had a 6. I just think the 3 games in 13 days has been massively overblown. I’m sure in the past we, or even better WCE or Freo have had a Sunday, Saturday, Friday run of games with 6 day breaks or similar but with more travel.

The thing is, don’t all teams roughly play three games in a 13 - 14 day period eg play a Sunday game, play anytime the following round and then in the third round if any cycle you get a Friday - Sunday game and there’s your three games. I’m at a loss at what the argument is from the media about Dees schedule

 

[buttermuffs]

I could counter that by saying they had a 7 day break while we only had a 6. I just think the 3 games in 13 days has been massively overblown. I’m sure in the past we, or even better WCE or Freo have had a Sunday, Saturday, Friday run of games with 6 day breaks or similar but with more travel.

They had it in 12 days to be fair. Stayed in Adelaide for a five day turnaround into gather round and then had a week until us.

I already posted on here how it’s weak for the media to be peddling that excuse since we had a shit first three rounds like that last year and it’s never an excuse for interstate sides.

It’s only ever brought up for vic clubs. Last year Collingwood had two consecutive six day breaks and had to travel to Adelaide in the middle and it was all you could hear about as they lost the next week. It’s never the actual club either it’s just some sections of fans and mostly the media in Victoria who play it up like it’s the greatest test of them all.

 

[Grasshopper17]

Intent.
Connection.
Teamwork.

Apart from the Carlton 1st quarter this year, and maybe a little of last years Dees MCG game, I can't remember a more complete performance than last night from this team. The boys were intent on making a statement and crush the supposed hoodoo in the process and did it admirably.

When we commit as a team all the pieces just fit. No wonder it frustrates the hell out of us when they don't - it's brilliant to watch it all flow together.

It's impossible to underestimate the difference work rate makes - Willmot has been beyond his years. Answerth is a junk yard dog who just will not give up. Berry just runs and tackles all day. Lester worked until he dropped. And what Rayner contributed last night has to make him understand what's required now.

It's that work that lets the quality of the rest of the boys shine. Defending is easier, forward pressure and goal kicking is easier. The patience, the game plan, the positional tinkering, but best of all - the execution. Just so happy to see it come together. No one beats us when we play like that.

Great summation.

It was a fantastic performance, built largely on our defensive effort, both around the ball (pressure) and behind it (structure). It is rare in the last few years, probably since 2020, that we have been able to say this. Generally when we have had a good win it has been driven by our attack. So Thursday night was a new high watermark for this defensive effort and intent. Sensational result given the opponent, the venue, 2nd consecutive away game off a 6 day break, and the fact we were pretty considerable underdog.

However I do have some cautionary comments that I wanted to leave til at least 24 hours after the result. I think if we approach every game we play in that way, we will be very hard to beat. At all. Having said that, I question how sustainable that effort is, week after week for another 5+ months. We all saw the Fremantle and Collingwood games where we couldn't even lay a finger on a mannequin, and then we've gone full suplex on Melbourne only a fortnight later.

The realist in me says that our optimal effort for our next 18, and hopefully 21-22 games, lies somewhere in the middle. Ideally as close as possible to Thursday night, but it's probably not reasonable to expect such a phenomenal effort week after week after week, from any team.

So that means if we want to maintain the same level of performance, we'll need to up our game in other areas. Fortunately, there's some low-hanging fruit, which a bit of continued application between games over the next month or 2 will help us address.

And that's our ball movement, particularly our connection and conversion inside 50.

Yes, we did chip it around a bit from time to time on Thursday night, which was promising in its intent, but there was still an element of Frankensteinian randomness to how we went about it. It was almost as though some of our guys went all chips in to make it work, whereas others were like "I don't have a bloody clue what I'm supposed to do here. Ah well, here Jake Lever/Max Gawn, have an intercept mark." This became more prevalent as the game went on. Fortunately we had done enough work on the scoreboard by then that it had little material impact on the game.

These thoughts don't just apply to the bloke with the ball, but also those who could receive the ball, as well as those who could create space for others to receive.

I guess we need to accept this for a period of time, even if it is something we continue to work on each week at training. Guys like Zorko and McCluggage will take to this like a duck to water. Probably McCarthy and Lester also. But for this to work properly, everyone has to buy in, both when they have the ball and also when a team mate has the ball. It felt a bit like not everyone knew their role and exactly what to do at any point in time. This will take time and repetition at training, in connection with vision from actual matches. It is so much harder to get right than any sound defensive setup.

But if we can get this right, it will also improve the aesthetics of our play. If we can achieve the same outcomes by working smarter, we might be able to achieve Thursday's result, or better, without requiring the same of exertion that saw us run out of puff midway through the last quarter.

Maybe I'm wired a bit differently to others, but I would not be particularly enamoured if we played like we did on Thursday for the next 20 weeks, all effort and pressure and tackling, regardless of how many games we win. If I'm going to apply that standard to a Ross Lyon-coached team I'm even more willing to apply it to the team I support as well.

Don't get me wrong - the bones of it are there. I'd say the vast majority of intercept marks we conceded were inside our 50, which, while frustrating, is where you want to concede them, rather than further up the ground where Melbourne would have had more width to attack.

So I'm pleased we have been doing the work on this, but I would not like us to sit back and think "ah well, that was pretty good, our ball movement is fixed". We still only generated shots at goal from 37.9% of our inside 50s on Thursday night, well below where we were last year and well below where the leading contenders are this year. Our ball movement framework still needs to be further fleshed out, and it will be tested again by Geelong next Saturday.

End of the day I just want to see us win games, by lots, kick truckloads of goals, be able to bring friends along to the Gabba who maybe haven't seen a lot of AFL, trusting they'll be able to go home having had a great time, been entertained, seen our team win, play awesome, and want to come back next time. There are lots of ways to skin the cat, our team is capable of most of them, so I'd like to see us aim high.

 

[Grasshopper17]

The thing I want to know about Answerth is how has he improve his disposal so much? Many, quite rightly, used to point out you had your heart in your mouth when he was kicking. I have noticed all season how much he has improved. Hid disposal used to stick out like a sore thumb. McKenna will have to start as the sub as Answerth is 'undropable' on present form.

Could some one find his season stats in this regard?

Lester reminds me of Bruce Doull: cool under pressure. rarely loses an one on one and uses the ball beautifully!!!!!

Noah's press conference from earlier this week will shed some light on this for you.

 

[Grasshopper17]

MATCH REVIEW: Tiger fined, Greene in the clear

www.afl.com.au

Ok then we will reference the Vlastuin tackle then…

Knowing our standard modus operandi, we will utilise the services of Adrian Anderson as our attorney, who will proceed to throw Charlie Cameron under a bus and continue his abominable record as tribunal defence representative.

 

[Grasshopper17]

I just don’t see how that could be the case. I think a good lawyer rips that argument to pieces.

Yes. But evidently we can't afford one. Hence we always end up with Adrian Anderson like all the other clubs who are not Collingwood, Carlton, Essendon, Richmond, West Coast and Adelaide.

 

[Grasshopper17]

I could counter that by saying they had a 7 day break while we only had a 6. I just think the 3 games in 13 days has been massively overblown. I’m sure in the past we, or even better WCE or Freo have had a Sunday, Saturday, Friday run of games with 6 day breaks or similar but with more travel.

They don't even have it right anyway. Melbourne played 3 games in 12 days. Saturday, Thursday, Thursday. Even so, we played 2 games in 6 days with two lengthier flights in between. So, swings and roundabouts.

Also, we've played off 6 day breaks coming back from Perth 4 of the last 5 years and won every single time.

So

#VFL

 

[notliondown]

Great summation.

It was a fantastic performance, built largely on our defensive effort, both around the ball (pressure) and behind it (structure). It is rare in the last few years, probably since 2020, that we have been able to say this. Generally when we have had a good win it has been driven by our attack. So Thursday night was a new high watermark for this defensive effort and intent. Sensational result given the opponent, the venue, 2nd consecutive away game off a 6 day break, and the fact we were pretty considerable underdog.

However I do have some cautionary comments that I wanted to leave til at least 24 hours after the result. I think if we approach every game we play in that way, we will be very hard to beat. At all. Having said that, I question how sustainable that effort is, week after week for another 5+ months. We all saw the Fremantle and Collingwood games where we couldn't even lay a finger on a mannequin, and then we've gone full suplex on Melbourne only a fortnight later.

The realist in me says that our optimal effort for our next 18, and hopefully 21-22 games, lies somewhere in the middle. Ideally as close as possible to Thursday night, but it's probably not reasonable to expect such a phenomenal effort week after week after week, from any team.

So that means if we want to maintain the same level of performance, we'll need to up our game in other areas. Fortunately, there's some low-hanging fruit, which a bit of continued application between games over the next month or 2 will help us address.

And that's our ball movement, particularly our connection and conversion inside 50.

Yes, we did chip it around a bit from time to time on Thursday night, which was promising in its intent, but there was still an element of Frankensteinian randomness to how we went about it. It was almost as though some of our guys went all chips in to make it work, whereas others were like "I don't have a bloody clue what I'm supposed to do here. Ah well, here Jake Lever/Max Gawn, have an intercept mark." This became more prevalent as the game went on. Fortunately we had done enough work on the scoreboard by then that it had little material impact on the game.

These thoughts don't just apply to the bloke with the ball, but also those who could receive the ball, as well as those who could create space for others to receive.

I guess we need to accept this for a period of time, even if it is something we continue to work on each week at training. Guys like Zorko and McCluggage will take to this like a duck to water. Probably McCarthy and Lester also. But for this to work properly, everyone has to buy in, both when they have the ball and also when a team mate has the ball. It felt a bit like not everyone knew their role and exactly what to do at any point in time. This will take time and repetition at training, in connection with vision from actual matches. It is so much harder to get right than any sound defensive setup.

But if we can get this right, it will also improve the aesthetics of our play. If we can achieve the same outcomes by working smarter, we might be able to achieve Thursday's result, or better, without requiring the same of exertion that saw us run out of puff midway through the last quarter.

Maybe I'm wired a bit differently to others, but I would not be particularly enamoured if we played like we did on Thursday for the next 20 weeks, all effort and pressure and tackling, regardless of how many games we win. If I'm going to apply that standard to a Ross Lyon-coached team I'm even more willing to apply it to the team I support as well.

Don't get me wrong - the bones of it are there. I'd say the vast majority of intercept marks we conceded were inside our 50, which, while frustrating, is where you want to concede them, rather than further up the ground where Melbourne would have had more width to attack.

So I'm pleased we have been doing the work on this, but I would not like us to sit back and think "ah well, that was pretty good, our ball movement is fixed". We still only generated shots at goal from 37.9% of our inside 50s on Thursday night, well below where we were last year and well below where the leading contenders are this year. Our ball movement framework still needs to be further fleshed out, and it will be tested again by Geelong next Saturday.

End of the day I just want to see us win games, by lots, kick truckloads of goals, be able to bring friends along to the Gabba who maybe haven't seen a lot of AFL, trusting they'll be able to go home having had a great time, been entertained, seen our team win, play awesome, and want to come back next time. There are lots of ways to skin the cat, our team is capable of most of them, so I'd like to see us aim high.

No I don't think you're wired differently - lets face it the reason we are a great team to watch is, well, because we are a great team to watch. We generally play an open, loose, attacking style. If we go down that Ross Lyon route I will burn my membership.

I think that's unlikely though. And yes I also think while we executed incredibly well on Thursday night you're right in that in needs a bit more polish in areas.

What impressed the hell out of me though was the buy in.

Perhaps we were a little unsure at times in it's execution, and the odd skill error lead to turn over, but because of the entire team focus and application those mistakes rarely cost us. If you examine previous losses or even momentum swings against us, it's usually lapses in application from just one or two players that makes it too hard for others to cover. That just wasn't there Thursday night.

The learning (shoot me now) from that game for the boys should simply be that they can actually control the tempo of a game. They do have the skill, the ability and now the execution to wrestle back momentum if they all commit to it. We've been criticised - and rightly I think - as being a bit one dimensional. That game should go someway towards changing that.

As a full time game plan it would be super hard work. But as a tool in their war chest they should have a confidence now they didn't have before.

 

[Schache_off]

And that's our ball movement, particularly our connection and conversion inside 50.

Yes, we did chip it around a bit from time to time on Thursday night, which was promising in its intent, but there was still an element of Frankensteinian randomness to how we went about it. It was almost as though some of our guys went all chips in to make it work, whereas others were like "I don't have a bloody clue what I'm supposed to do here. Ah well, here Jake Lever/Max Gawn, have an intercept mark." This became more prevalent as the game went on. Fortunately we had done enough work on the scoreboard by then that it had little material impact on the game.

These thoughts don't just apply to the bloke with the ball, but also those who could receive the ball, as well as those who could create space for others to receive.

I guess we need to accept this for a period of time, even if it is something we continue to work on each week at training. Guys like Zorko and McCluggage will take to this like a duck to water. Probably McCarthy and Lester also. But for this to work properly, everyone has to buy in, both when they have the ball and also when a team mate has the ball. It felt a bit like not everyone knew their role and exactly what to do at any point in time. This will take time and repetition at training, in connection with vision from actual matches. It is so much harder to get right than any sound defensive setup.

But if we can get this right, it will also improve the aesthetics of our play. If we can achieve the same outcomes by working smarter, we might be able to achieve Thursday's result, or better, without requiring the same of exertion that saw us run out of puff midway through the last quarter.

I could have the exact game wrong but didn't we use this ball movement tactic against the Demons last year? We were double switching at times to keep moving their players so they could never set up for the intercept mark and it was acknowledged by the commentators as well.

 

[paulige]

First time seeing Lions win in Melb since pre 2007. I feel a monkey off my back having been at a few memorable losses at the MCG since 2019.

MCC members can be sooks, had a bloke next to me have a go after I yelled ball on a big tackle which was paid, saying “you’re really funny aren’t you” repeatedly.

God forbid an away team supporter yell for the same free kicks the home team call for. Glad to see he didn’t return to his reserved seat after half time.

I think it’s like most clubs - 5% of supporters, give or take, are genuine peanuts.

So for any regular game in the MCC, you might have, say, 10 opposition supporters within earshot (as in, you can hear any comment they make, whether muttered or yelled). This means you would expect to have, an average, 0.5 of a peanut within earshot each game (or more realistically, one peanut every second game).

Any game V Melbourne though is naturally going to be more painful - you now have approximately 60 opposition supporters within earshot, and can expect an average of 3 peanuts within earshot per game.

The other 57 are of course, perfectly reasonable people - but are tarnished by the 5%.

The percentages hypothesised in the Peanut Proximity Theory is, in my experience, supported anecdotally via BigFooty, too - save for a few outliers/trolls/peanuts, the majority of posters of any club, are typically very reasonable and open-minded.

… but when you’ve had a night where you’ve had multiple peanuts within earshot (or the dreaded ‘Peanut Cluster’, a group of 5+), it’s easy to tar an entire group with the same brush - as I found myself doing after spending Thursday night in the MCC!


(Just extending on the theory, it also helps explain why clubs like Collingwood are so dislikable - naturally, having so many fans, they have many, many more peanuts, than a club like GWS for example - even though for each club, proportionally the peanuts make up approximately 5% of the whole).

I find when I pause to think about it, the vast majority of Collingwood-supporting friends I have are great people, and nothing but reasonable when it comes to footy!)

 

[Grasshopper17]

I could have the exact game wrong but didn't we use this ball movement tactic against the Demons last year? We were double switching at times to keep moving their players so they could never set up for the intercept mark and it was acknowledged by the commentators as well.

Yep you've nailed it. In fact I reckon we did it better last year. We certainly did it differently last year. That game last year we were far more expansive in moving the ball from side to side, and this opened up space for us to go fast through the corridor. It was spectacular and thrilling, and we were able to get a shot at goal from 50% of our entries inside 50. It was also one of just 3 times Melbourne has conceded over 100 points in the last 5 years.

On Thursday night we generally went shorter and were a bit more patient, which actually contradicted Dayne Zorko's comments prematch about how we would have to play fast to beat Melbourne's defence. Those comments in hindsight have echoes of Terry Wallace's mischievous and intentionally misleading "we're gonna have to kick 25 goals to have any chance of winning" in the lead up to the super-flood game of 2000.

If I had to choose I would obviously choose the way we played last year. We kicked 16 goals to 8 in our best period of that game (removing the first 10 minutes and the last 10 minutes), and we kicked 12 goals to 3 in our best period of Thursday's game. So on both a net basis and a % basis, Thursday's approach yielded a better result. Which I'm a little sad about haha.

I suspect the coaches would say that the way we played on Thursday allowed us to better commit numbers forward of the ball, helping us lock the ball in our forward zone, apply pressure at contests and force them to go somewhat laterally to clear the initial congestion. This in turn would give us time to get our numbers set up behind the ball to stop any fast counter attack, which we did brilliantly most of the night.

 

[Grasshopper17]

I think it’s like most clubs - 5% of supporters, give or take, are genuine peanuts.

So for any regular game in the MCC, you might have, say, 10 opposition supporters within earshot (as in, you can hear any comment they make, whether muttered or yelled). This means you would expect to have, an average, 0.5 of a peanut within earshot each game (or more realistically, one peanut every second game).

Any game V Melbourne though is naturally going to be more painful - you now have approximately 60 opposition supporters within earshot, and can expect an average of 3 peanuts within earshot per game.

The other 57 are of course, perfectly reasonable people - but are tarnished by the 5%.

The percentages hypothesised in the Peanut Proximity Theory is, in my experience, supported anecdotally via BigFooty, too - save for a few outliers/trolls/peanuts, the majority of posters of any club, are typically very reasonable and open-minded.

… but when you’ve had a night where you’ve had multiple peanuts within earshot (or the dreaded ‘Peanut Cluster’, a group of 5+), it’s easy to tar an entire group with the same brush - as I found myself doing after spending Thursday night in the MCC!


(Just extending on the theory, it also helps explain why clubs like Collingwood are so dislikable - naturally, having so many fans, they have many, many more peanuts, than a club like GWS for example - even though for each club, proportionally the peanuts make up approximately 5% of the whole).

I find when I pause to think about it, the vast majority of Collingwood-supporting friends I have are great people, and nothing but reasonable when it comes to footy!)

Can confirm the 20 people sitting closest to me at the footy will vouch for the Peanut Proximity Theory

 

[martinson]

Great summation.

It was a fantastic performance, built largely on our defensive effort, both around the ball (pressure) and behind it (structure). It is rare in the last few years, probably since 2020, that we have been able to say this. Generally when we have had a good win it has been driven by our attack. So Thursday night was a new high watermark for this defensive effort and intent. Sensational result given the opponent, the venue, 2nd consecutive away game off a 6 day break, and the fact we were pretty considerable underdog.

However I do have some cautionary comments that I wanted to leave til at least 24 hours after the result. I think if we approach every game we play in that way, we will be very hard to beat. At all. Having said that, I question how sustainable that effort is, week after week for another 5+ months. We all saw the Fremantle and Collingwood games where we couldn't even lay a finger on a mannequin, and then we've gone full suplex on Melbourne only a fortnight later.

The realist in me says that our optimal effort for our next 18, and hopefully 21-22 games, lies somewhere in the middle. Ideally as close as possible to Thursday night, but it's probably not reasonable to expect such a phenomenal effort week after week after week, from any team.

So that means if we want to maintain the same level of performance, we'll need to up our game in other areas. Fortunately, there's some low-hanging fruit, which a bit of continued application between games over the next month or 2 will help us address.

And that's our ball movement, particularly our connection and conversion inside 50.

Yes, we did chip it around a bit from time to time on Thursday night, which was promising in its intent, but there was still an element of Frankensteinian randomness to how we went about it. It was almost as though some of our guys went all chips in to make it work, whereas others were like "I don't have a bloody clue what I'm supposed to do here. Ah well, here Jake Lever/Max Gawn, have an intercept mark." This became more prevalent as the game went on. Fortunately we had done enough work on the scoreboard by then that it had little material impact on the game.

These thoughts don't just apply to the bloke with the ball, but also those who could receive the ball, as well as those who could create space for others to receive.

I guess we need to accept this for a period of time, even if it is something we continue to work on each week at training. Guys like Zorko and McCluggage will take to this like a duck to water. Probably McCarthy and Lester also. But for this to work properly, everyone has to buy in, both when they have the ball and also when a team mate has the ball. It felt a bit like not everyone knew their role and exactly what to do at any point in time. This will take time and repetition at training, in connection with vision from actual matches. It is so much harder to get right than any sound defensive setup.

But if we can get this right, it will also improve the aesthetics of our play. If we can achieve the same outcomes by working smarter, we might be able to achieve Thursday's result, or better, without requiring the same of exertion that saw us run out of puff midway through the last quarter.

Maybe I'm wired a bit differently to others, but I would not be particularly enamoured if we played like we did on Thursday for the next 20 weeks, all effort and pressure and tackling, regardless of how many games we win. If I'm going to apply that standard to a Ross Lyon-coached team I'm even more willing to apply it to the team I support as well.

Don't get me wrong - the bones of it are there. I'd say the vast majority of intercept marks we conceded were inside our 50, which, while frustrating, is where you want to concede them, rather than further up the ground where Melbourne would have had more width to attack.

So I'm pleased we have been doing the work on this, but I would not like us to sit back and think "ah well, that was pretty good, our ball movement is fixed". We still only generated shots at goal from 37.9% of our inside 50s on Thursday night, well below where we were last year and well below where the leading contenders are this year. Our ball movement framework still needs to be further fleshed out, and it will be tested again by Geelong next Saturday.

End of the day I just want to see us win games, by lots, kick truckloads of goals, be able to bring friends along to the Gabba who maybe haven't seen a lot of AFL, trusting they'll be able to go home having had a great time, been entertained, seen our team win, play awesome, and want to come back next time. There are lots of ways to skin the cat, our team is capable of most of them, so I'd like to see us aim high.

Had the same thought. We got ourselves up for that level of defensive pressure and intensity and once we had the ascendency kept it up till near the end.

But I hope people don't expect that level every week because they won't get it . What we would like is something akin to that with some improvements in other aspects of our game as you say , to sustain a lot of wins for the season

 

[paulige]

I could counter that by saying they had a 7 day break while we only had a 6. I just think the 3 games in 13 days has been massively overblown. I’m sure in the past we, or even better WCE or Freo have had a Sunday, Saturday, Friday run of games with 6 day breaks or similar but with more travel.

Its insanely inane.

If you go by the hour, the interval of time in which they played their three games is approximately 12 days and 2.5 hours.

By comparison, we played our 3 games within the space of 14 days and 2.5 hours.

This sort of difference in break time (2 days, over the space of 2 weeks) is absolutely common, and completely unremarkable. But, while we’re comparing:

- we had a 6 day break, and back to back travel, leading into and including this game

- they had a 7 day break, and only had to travel (one way) a week ago

Factoring in time spent in the air over the last week, we clocked up 5:20 going to Adelaide and back, and another 2:25 flying to Melbourne, for a total of 7:45.

By comparison, Melbourne spent a grand total of 1:20 flying from Adelaide to Melbourne.

If you want to consider the whole season, then you can add their ~1 hour flight from Melbourne to Adelaide 2 weeks ago, and their ~2 hour return trip to Sydney a whole 5 weeks ago.

If you wish go do that, you’ll just need to consider the ~10 hours we spent flying to and from Perth…


TLDR; anyone who tries to use the “Melbourne were unfairly fatigued” card is not fit to tie (or even be in possession of) their own shoelaces, and can be safely disregarded.

 

[paulige]

Can confirm the 20 people sitting closest to me at the footy will vouch for the Peanut Proximity Theory

Self-awareness and Peanut Status are mutually exclusive - you’re not nearly as bad as you think!

 

[Nathan Barley]

I think our ball movement was good to not give up turnovers but I think once again it all come down to our clearance dominance