4 hours ago, DubDee said:

Pies kicked 12.18. clearly inefficient 

they won because they had 14 more inside 50 and Hill had the game of his life

6 of their 18 points were rushed in play.

They kicked pressure goals after the siren twice and several from outside 50, with Crisp two, De Goey and Sidebottom, just as examples.

Humans have a great need to look at the result and then make up a story that explains that. Look at the difference between the Qualifying and Grand Finals. In one, we were inaccurate despite being territorially dominant, with Collingwood taking their chances despite enormous territorial deficiency. Because Collingwood won a close game people try to make the story about Collingwood's superior forward efficiency against our useless fixation on territory. Yesterday the roles are reversed, as Collingwood were dominant in territory but wasteful and Brisbane were efficient with get chances, but because Collingwood win we still search for reasons why Collingwood were still efficient (like looking at rushed behind our shots outside 50 etc - not picking on any posters in particular) because humans need to tell the story. 

The fact is that luck and randomness have so much influence on the outcome but everyone is very uncomfortable with that because a coherent story is very important to us.

If we're making decisions about the future we can get clouded by the results and end up focusing on the wrong things.

Edited October 1, 20231 yr by Axis of Bob

7 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

Humans have a great need to look at the result and then make up a story that explains that. Look at the difference between the Qualifying and Grand Finals. In one, we were inaccurate despite being territorially dominant, with Collingwood taking their chances despite enormous territorial deficiency. Because Collingwood won a close game people try to make the story about Collingwood's superior forward efficiency against our useless fixation on territory. Yesterday the roles are reversed, as Collingwood were dominant in territory but wasteful and Brisbane were efficient with get chances, but because Collingwood win we still search for reasons why Collingwood were still efficient (like looking at rushed behind our shots outside 50 etc - not picking on any posters in particular) because humans need to tell the story. 

The fact is that luck and randomness have so much influence on the outcome but everyone is very uncomfortable with that because a coherent story is very important to us.

If we're making decisions about the future we can get clouded by the results and end up focusing on the wrong things.

Or if Acres was Mil Hanna, we would have been in the PF.

 

10 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

Humans have a great need to look at the result and then make up a story that explains that. Look at the difference between the Qualifying and Grand Finals. In one, we were inaccurate despite being territorially dominant, with Collingwood taking their chances despite enormous territorial deficiency. Because Collingwood won a close game people try to make the story about Collingwood's superior forward efficiency against our useless fixation on territory. Yesterday the roles are reversed, as Collingwood were dominant in territory but wasteful and Brisbane were efficient with get chances, but because Collingwood win we still search for reasons why Collingwood were still efficient (like looking at rushed behind our shots outside 50 etc - not picking on any posters in particular) because humans need to tell the story. 

The fact is that luck and randomness have so much influence on the outcome but everyone is very uncomfortable with that because a coherent story is very important to us.

If we're making decisions about the future we can get clouded by the results and end up focusing on the wrong things.

Great post as always mate. It's one of the reasons I hope we don't have any major recorrections next year.

We need better ball users in our forward half and better finishers inside 50, but games still hinge on defence, so the idea that we revert to something akin to 2018 ball movement with overly aggressive positioning that could see us done out the back is foolhardy. Particularly, with the speed in the game nowadays.

Equally, it's unlikely we abandon our territory game, because that means either allowing the opposition extras at stoppages and either losing stoppages and slingshotting, or ocassionally winning clearances and scoring from most of those opportunities. It puts us at a disadvantage and doesn't play to the elite cattle we have.

We're going to win our fair share of stoppages with Oliver, Viney and Trac in our midfield, so we need to look at other ways to improve our strengths. IMV, we should continue with territory, but get better players in the forward half that can execute when it does go in there.

It'll be interesting to see which way we go.

Edited October 1, 20231 yr by Binmans PA

2 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Or if Acres was Mil Hanna, we would have been in the PF.

 

Mil Hanna! Even as a non-Carlton supporter, I loved watching him play when I was young. Thanks for bringing up those memories, Red.

1 minute ago, Binmans PA said:

It's one of the reasons I hope we don't have any major recorrections next year.

I think so. It's easy to throw it the baby with the bathwater in a season like this but I don't think we need a revolution. It's just going to be about finding better ways to maximise our scoring when we on top and then finding longer term succession to Gwen and May. Our list is in a good spot without our important players signed up long term and we've got draft assets to help us with future planning.

We've got a reasonably long flag window and our best chance to win flags to to be consistently good across that window, rather than going for magic beans in the next year or two.

8 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

They weren't the only who said their game wouldn't stand up come finals. Could easily pick out a few more. They're quiet now..

How's their shrewed recruitment? Markov and Hill added for extra speed and skill that compliments their game plan.

Kudos to McRea, he's a fine operator. 

But I would say their game in finals was not the same as they played in the H&A especially in the GF.  Their style was quite different and less frantic to reduce scoring against them.  McRea is a smart coach. 

34 minutes ago, Binmans PA said:

Great post as always mate. It's one of the reasons I hope we don't have any major recorrections next year.

We need better ball users in our forward half and better finishers inside 50, but games still hinge on defence, so the idea that we revert to something akin to 2018 ball movement with overly aggressive positioning that could see us done out the back is foolhardy. Particularly, with the speed in the game nowadays.

Equally, it's unlikely we abandon our territory game, because that means either allowing the opposition extras at stoppages and either losing stoppages and slingshotting, or ocassionally winning clearances and scoring from most of those opportunities. It puts us at a disadvantage and doesn't play to the elite cattle we have.

We're going to win our fair share of stoppages with Oliver, Viney and Trac in our midfield, so we need to look at other ways to improve our strengths. IMV, we should continue with territory, but get better players in the forward half that can execute when it does go in there.

It'll be interesting to see which way we go.

Run from behind is just as big a problem. We either have the laziest rebounding defenders in the league, or they are set up/working too hard defensive or they are poorly coached.

I suspect a little of all 3.

Should be drop for 10 push ups every time the defenders win the ball back and chip it 20m to Langdon or Hunter on the same with the ball came from.

The ball has to exit our back 50 through the corridor or fat side and that means defenders and mids willing to run, handball and kick to the space not the safety of the boundary.

The work rate of the Pies and Lions backlines when counter attacking is something completely different to ours.

9 minutes ago, darkhorse72 said:

But I would say their game in finals was not the same as they played in the H&A especially in the GF.  Their style was quite different and less frantic to reduce scoring against them.  McRea is a smart coach. 

Not convinced it was coaching. After hot first quarters both us and GWS put the brakes on them.

Brisbane aren’t that kind of side so couldn’t hold them as much, but the Pies played a different game because they dominated inside 50’s but struggled to kick goals against a good Lions backline.

37 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Run from behind is just as big a problem. We either have the laziest rebounding defenders in the league, or they are set up/working too hard defensive or they are poorly coached.

I suspect a little of all 3.

Should be drop for 10 push ups every time the defenders win the ball back and chip it 20m to Langdon or Hunter on the same with the ball came from.

The ball has to exit our back 50 through the corridor or fat side and that means defenders and mids willing to run, handball and kick to the space not the safety of the boundary.

The work rate of the Pies and Lions backlines when counter attacking is something completely different to ours.

I think it's our set up and our cattle. We're better playing territory, forward half game, but still, we averaged 50+ points from turnover this year, so we were able to slingshot fine.

15 minutes ago, Binmans PA said:

I think it's our set up and our cattle. We're better playing territory, forward half game, but still, we averaged 50+ points from turnover this year, so we were able to slingshot fine.

I think those numbers are influenced by our players being very good at bashing it down the line and winning contests. And scoring plenty well that way against bad sides.

But it’s really tough way to score against good defenses. And nearly impossible to score against good defenders when you don’t have the tall forwards.

Apart from that there’s no joy or flair in banging it down the congested wing all day. We’re deskilling our players when we play Ross Lyon ball. Our forwards rarely get any quality service and our half forwards especially rarely get space to show their talent.

Think about this: What kind of side would our backline like to play against? The answer is a side that moves the ball like us. What’s the worst nightmare for our backline? A side that can switch the ground and get through the corridor. 

Our backs have to take more chances and risk turnovers that hurt them in order to create more scores

58 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Apart from that there’s no joy or flair in banging it down the congested wing all day. We’re deskilling our players when we play Ross Lyon ball. Our forwards rarely get any quality service and our half forwards especially rarely get space to show their talent.

Agree

Not too much joy for viewers either.

Watching the same gameplan at VFL level is even worse

23 hours ago, Demons11 said:

What a load of rubbish - Collingwood weren’t efficient and kicked terribly in front of goal 

True, which unfortunately means they should have won comfortably...

23 hours ago, The heart beats true said:

Brodie lives around the corner from me. He’s a really nice guy (who grows some of the best Lemons in the neighbourhood). Every time I see him I’m always amazed at how thin he is. There’s nothing to the modern player, even the big blokes.

He’s a really good player, that’s worked super hard for his chance and is incredibly professional. I’d love him at the Dees.

Does he live out west? I saw him in a Yarraville supermarket a couple of years back 

4 minutes ago, The Jackson FIX said:

Does he live out west? I saw him in a Yarraville supermarket a couple of years back 

Yep. I’m in Yarraville. 

Have enjoyed this thread.

Completely agree that footy media (and footy supporters as a result) aren’t great judges on strategy - too emotionally led by short term results: We kick 9.17 in a final and lose and we DESPERATELY need to recruit an elite KPF… Collingwood kick 12.18 and win and they’re on the verge of a dynasty.

Also agree that pace, decision making and skill are higher priorities than a key forward.  Was at the game yesterday and whilst Coll not great in front of goal they were far more disciplined than us at lowering eyes going inside 50 and inside 50. 

On 9/30/2023 at 6:53 PM, DeeSpencer said:

Pendles and Sidebottom will drop off soon I hope. Mitchell’s had a couple of important finals but is really close to being ineffective, just does enough of what he’s good at in tight. They’ve got some concerns. And their young mids haven’t been good so far, although I remain very high on Ed Allan.

 

tay adams being injured was one of the great blessing in disguise outcomes for the pies. he and mitchell didn't both fit in as they play the same role with the same strengths weaknesses and lack of leg speed

18 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

I think those numbers are influenced by our players being very good at bashing it down the line and winning contests. And scoring plenty well that way against bad sides.

But it’s really tough way to score against good defenses. And nearly impossible to score against good defenders when you don’t have the tall forwards.

Apart from that there’s no joy or flair in banging it down the congested wing all day. We’re deskilling our players when we play Ross Lyon ball. Our forwards rarely get any quality service and our half forwards especially rarely get space to show their talent.

Think about this: What kind of side would our backline like to play against? The answer is a side that moves the ball like us. What’s the worst nightmare for our backline? A side that can switch the ground and get through the corridor. 

Our backs have to take more chances and risk turnovers that hurt them in order to create more scores

Do you think the lack of stability with personnel in the forward half contributes to this? The fact there was a different forward set up every week means they were more conservative? Or is it just a completely separate issue?

1 minute ago, Simmo0911 said:

Do you think the lack of stability with personnel in the forward half contributes to this? The fact there was a different forward set up every week means they were more conservative? Or is it just a completely separate issue?

Our backline, mids and high half forwards were just about the same all year. And if anything less forward talent and cohesion should be a reason to move the ball faster.

Watch how often our backs turn boundary side and go short to a winger or bomb it long. Often after holding it up.

And how the 5 defenders without the ball will do nothing more than a token fan out for a switch or maybe point for a corridor kick.

It’s a midfield problem too. Langdon will ask for the quick wide handball - but gets it less without Jaiden Hunt to give it to him. Hunter won’t, he’ll go straight for the 15m chip. Brayshaw will make position to get used, which would be good if his decisions with the ball weren’t either hold it forever or bite off more than he should. The other mids will at times but generally they just plug themselves in to the zone holes, there’s no coordinated movement to create gaps and then run in waves from kicks to them.

In summer training we used Pickett in the midfield and he’d drop to half back to get kicks and light the ground up. Obviously that didn’t last in to the season. Hopefully it does next year. I’d try ANB, Chandler and even Spargo, Laurie on ball for the same reasons. But also hope we get more from Oliver who at his best is a dynamic runner with the ball (even if the kicking is a mixed bag).

Rivers, Bowey, Salem (healthy) and McVee all have the movement and skills to make decisions on the run. They just have to work harder and smarter to get the ball, and our tall defenders have to trust them. Lever and May take intercept marks and rather than take the game on like Howe and Moore they call for a time out and stop the ball moving. 

20 hours ago, Axis of Bob said:

Humans have a great need to look at the result and then make up a story that explains that. Look at the difference between the Qualifying and Grand Finals. In one, we were inaccurate despite being territorially dominant, with Collingwood taking their chances despite enormous territorial deficiency. Because Collingwood won a close game people try to make the story about Collingwood's superior forward efficiency against our useless fixation on territory. Yesterday the roles are reversed, as Collingwood were dominant in territory but wasteful and Brisbane were efficient with get chances, but because Collingwood win we still search for reasons why Collingwood were still efficient (like looking at rushed behind our shots outside 50 etc - not picking on any posters in particular) because humans need to tell the story. 

The fact is that luck and randomness have so much influence on the outcome but everyone is very uncomfortable with that because a coherent story is very important to us.

If we're making decisions about the future we can get clouded by the results and end up focusing on the wrong things.

True dat

17 hours ago, The Jackson FIX said:

Have enjoyed this thread.

Completely agree that footy media (and footy supporters as a result) aren’t great judges on strategy - too emotionally led by short term results: We kick 9.17 in a final and lose and we DESPERATELY need to recruit an elite KPF… Collingwood kick 12.18 and win and they’re on the verge of a dynasty.

Also agree that pace, decision making and skill are higher priorities than a key forward.  Was at the game yesterday and whilst Coll not great in front of goal they were far more disciplined than us at lowering eyes going inside 50 and inside 50. 

You speak essentially of a 3 goal difference. 

We kick 3 goals more in many  games and we win them. 

It sounds oh so easy really but it's not otherwise we would have corrected it.

You also speak of the other Elephant... our pathways into scoring ( or more aptly...not !! )

I fail to understand the WHY of why we dont adopt as preferential the very strategies we employed pre and early season.  ( also a cpl of latter h/a games ) . The other side to same coin is wht we perpetuate the same mistakes.  Isnt anyone  taking notice we all ask. They must be...and must also be instructing how we play.

I dont think the getting of player X or player Y is the acrual panacea of our ill fortune. 

I dont think the players are our primary problem.

19 hours ago, Spit Demon said:

True, which unfortunately means they should have won comfortably...

which means we should have been in a PF  

But it doesn't really.  Kicking for goal a skill just like kicking inside fifty and from defence

29 minutes ago, DubDee said:

which means we should have been in a PF  

But it doesn't really.  Kicking for goal a skill just like kicking inside fifty and from defence

But it's a very noisy statistic. When you have a small sample size (ie, 26 shots in the SF) then you end up with weird results (ie, goal accuracy of 34.6%) which looks bad but that's because of the small sample size. There's a lot of luck and randomness that happens within a single game and especially with a single skill like goal kicking. On March 29, 1992, Tony Lockett kicked 3 goals 7 behinds against Footscray - even though he was a career 70% accuracy goalkicker because small sample sizes create weird results.

When we look at the full year with all teams, we get a much better representation (ie, 8,888 shots across the full season from all teams). The average accuracy for all teams in 2023 was 58.8%. The difference between the best and worst was only 7 percentage points (63.1% first and 56.1% last). 

Interestingly, Melbourne was above the AFL average in terms of accuracy for the year (7th, with 59.1%) and Carlton were below average (12th, with 57.6%). These things play out over the long term but finals are played one time with a small sample size, so you can get some weird results. In this case, a generally less accurate Carlton who had 18 shots at goal managed to beat a generally more accurate Melbourne who had 26.

But it's the randomness of these things which makes games interesting.

3 hours ago, Axis of Bob said:

But it's a very noisy statistic. When you have a small sample size (ie, 26 shots in the SF) then you end up with weird results (ie, goal accuracy of 34.6%) which looks bad but that's because of the small sample size. There's a lot of luck and randomness that happens within a single game and especially with a single skill like goal kicking. On March 29, 1992, Tony Lockett kicked 3 goals 7 behinds against Footscray - even though he was a career 70% accuracy goalkicker because small sample sizes create weird results.

When we look at the full year with all teams, we get a much better representation (ie, 8,888 shots across the full season from all teams). The average accuracy for all teams in 2023 was 58.8%. The difference between the best and worst was only 7 percentage points (63.1% first and 56.1% last). 

Interestingly, Melbourne was above the AFL average in terms of accuracy for the year (7th, with 59.1%) and Carlton were below average (12th, with 57.6%). These things play out over the long term but finals are played one time with a small sample size, so you can get some weird results. In this case, a generally less accurate Carlton who had 18 shots at goal managed to beat a generally more accurate Melbourne who had 26.

But it's the randomness of these things which makes games interesting.

Interesting would you not agree.. our accuracy waned as the season progressed...and fell off a cliff in finals ..

I find that...well..  worrying 

Schache can be our Frampton, well could have been