I've got less buy into the '3 games in 13' days narrative than some others. If every side played a game every 7 days they'd still be playing 3 games in 15 days. We had a 7 day gap leading into the Port game and the same leading into the Brisbane game. Travel time was a 1 hour flight each way over a week apart. From a psychological perspective we then had a 13 days gap that included some 'down time' to look forward to after throwing everything at the Lions. I certainly think it started to show in the last quarter of the Crows game however when we were coming off a 5 day gap and went goalless. 

That said, almost the entire side looked flat on Thursday night, couldn't cover ground and spread quickly or break lines, made poor decisions and fumbled possession constantly. Losing Salo early didn't help our ball movement and transition and being without Kozzie's pressure (both perceived and real) and dynamism robbed us of the ability to create goals out of half chances and made it easier for the opposition to move the ball out of their own defence. In our engine room we know that Vines had been ill the week before and Clazz was playing literally with one hand. We were also robbed of both Koz and Salo as midfield rotations. 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think our performance had more to do with injuries and suspension to some of our most important players which our B graders couldn't make up for unfortunately. 

5 hours ago, roy11 said:

Assume they'll try say it was low impact and not medium impact?

When we appealed for Kozzie the tribunal concluded that the contact had the potential to cause injury, surely the same logic should apply for a dangerous tackle?

Well yes, but I expect the Bears will win this. Corrupt league and all.

4 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

Brisbane certainly has the wood over us, have had for a while now.

Last 8 against them I think is 5-3 our way, and 2 of those we thrashed them. Not sure they have the wood.

I expect we will be 7-3 or 8-2 after the West Coast game.

3 hours ago, binman said:

Brilliant.

Finally a footy journo makes the bog obvious point about the impact of the insane aerobic demands on AFL players in the modern game.

I love this line:

'The fixture is contentious enough already without placing such insane demands on the athletes, who need adequate time to recover between half-marathons'

And even more importantly factors the impact of those demands into their analysis of the game.

The job of footy journos is helping fans understand the game. They do fans a complete disservice if they ignore a critical factor like physical readiness and the impact of fatigue on performance. 

Take the loss to the Lions. What are the reasons we lost?

In the this thread factors such as poor coaching, poor selection, players mentally not strong enough, smashed at the contest, not enough pressure and not running two ways have all been highlighted. And fair enough too, all are potential factors.  

But if the impact of fatigue is also not factored into any analysis of our performance, you are only left with such factors as potential reasons for the loss. Which means the assessment is off.

For example our all team defence is incredibly taxing, as is winning the clearance count, as is applying elite pressure, as is setting up one down at stoppages etc etc etc.

Logic says that if the players are fatigued, these, and other key elements of our method will be more difficult to implement (which will be reflected in the stats) and our chances of winning will decrease.

Factoring in fatigue is not making excuses, it is simply ensuring all potential reasons for a performance are considered. 

Were the dees fatigued against the lions? The eye test says yes, absolutely.

What was the cause of the fatigue? Who knows.

Perhaps, as Stafford suggests it was simply that we were playing our third game in just 13 days, which included a physically draining and intense win over Port Adelaide and backing up 5 days later to beat the Crows.

It is clear they targeted those games and in order to maximise our chances of winning both they would have designed their high performance program to peak for both games. If so, is it possible to then be in peak shape for the Lions game? 

Or perhaps in addition to the above, we also took the opportunity to get a heavy training block in ahead of our bye to take advantage of the two week week break to the tigers game (ie, so players have time to recover and taper)?

That may not be the case of course, but equally it shouldn't be rejected out of hand. 

In that context, as another poster noted, it's worth noting the pre bye record of the teams that played in the OR:

• Dees: 22 point loss to the lions
• Lions: 23 point loss to Freo
• Suns: 48 point loss to the dogs
• Tigers: 39 point loss to the Eagles
• Pies: led the hawks at half time by 38 points, stopped to a walk in the second half, only kicking 2 goals (none in the last) to luckily scrape in by 2 points
• Blues: scrappy, lucky 5 point win over the tigers
• Swans: beat west coast by 26 (having lost to the tigers the previous week)
• Giants: thumped Eagles

The Giants almost came to a standstill last week with a few injuries and only 1 on the bench.  So I checked the AFL tracker stats to see if they struggled and the workrate for the Saints was insane.  They had the 5th highest amount of high intensity running ever (49km).  And the Saints have a 5 day turnaround this week so it will be very interesting how they come up against the dogs on Thursday night.

3 minutes ago, Watson11 said:

The Giants almost came to a standstill last week with a few injuries and only 1 on the bench.  So I checked the AFL tracker stats to see if they struggled and the workrate for the Saints was insane.  They had the 5th highest amount of high intensity running ever (49km).  And the Saints have a 5 day turnaround this week so it will be very interesting how they come up against the dogs on Thursday night.

Is this the second 5 day turnaround for the Saints already? We won’t be far behind in a few weeks.

6 hours ago, monoccular said:

As I recall we did have Gus and Salem for most if not all of those games.   Suck depth of experience us hard to suddenly replace

I did forget about Gus, but I don't recall Salem getting much midfield time in that period, although I could be wrong.

But it was Viney and Sparrow who really lifted, both played some career best footy.

1 hour ago, binman said:

I used to know an Andrew Stafford as a teenager. Was a big music fan.

How old is this Andrew Stafford?

Scratch that. Just read the info at the link. Different dude.

Nah it’s the same dude isn’t it?

Queensland based journo

Loves his (the) saints in particular, as opposed to the aints

2 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

Nah it’s the same dude isn’t it?

Queensland based journo

Loves his (the) saints in particular, as opposed to the aints

Diff dude to my old mate I meant.

The aints were a funny group. Reflective of the angst that surrounded the saints.

15 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

Nah it’s the same dude isn’t it?

Queensland based journo

Loves his (the) saints in particular, as opposed to the aints

I'm sure he'd love the aints as well. How can any Queenslander not love Sir Ed Kuepper

Their last album a few years ago was fantastic 

Edited April 15, 20241 yr by Brownie

2 hours ago, Brownie said:

I'm sure he'd love the aints as well. How can any Queenslander not love Sir Ed Kuepper

Their last album a few years ago was fantastic 

oh i hadn't even thought of them! i meant st. kilda as opposed to (the) saints or the aints

stafford is a good music writer

11 hours ago, whatwhat say what said:

oh i hadn't even thought of them! i meant st. kilda as opposed to (the) saints or the aints

stafford is a good music writer

Ed is still touring and writing.  Herethey are at the reclink community cup. Love the brass section 

https://youtu.be/yf2c_ZqUmHw?si=JTeSJtxC1zB2icnQ

Edited April 15, 20241 yr by Brownie

I noticed in the podcast on here that we talked about 3 games in 13 days as a major factor / reason. Whilst I don’t doubt fatigue was involved, 3 in 13 is actually almost 1 game every 7 days, which isn’t really all that bad. Lions were at 3 in 14 days so that is hardly a difference to explain the monumental differences.

 You could say that we have played 1 extra game than the lions in the same time frame alluding to the bye round that Lions already have but at this early stage of the season , does this really matter?

I refuse to accept this as an excuse and I think it was a very small factor in the whole scheme of things. Doing so is really not doing the required game analysis to really understand how we need to play against them. Our brand does not stack up anymore. 
 

Lions have the formula to beat us and have essentially done so in 3/4 last encounters - let’s be fair it’s lucky they are not 4/4. They know how to beat us and do so comprehensively. This is a coaching failure more than anything else. 

21 minutes ago, Gawndy the Great said:

Lions have the formula to beat us and have essentially done so in 3/4 last encounters - let’s be fair it’s lucky they are not 4/4. They know how to beat us and do so comprehensively.

Yeah nah. Combined margin across those last 4 games is 45 points - if you add one game further back it’s 13 points in our favour. 

If you start in 2021 it’s 5-3 our way. We were bad, we got beat - they don’t have any magic spell. 

1 hour ago, Fromgotowoewodin said:

Yeah nah. Combined margin across those last 4 games is 45 points - if you add one game further back it’s 13 points in our favour. 

If you start in 2021 it’s 5-3 our way. We were bad, we got beat - they don’t have any magic spell. 

I would respectfully disagree. In none of the previous games since 22 SF have we  ever looked like we had the game on our terms. 
Use whatever excuse you want, they have us worked out. They continually get us at stoppage and deny us the ball with their uncontested style game. 
Tell me how it’s not a magic spell and Goody will hire you in a heart beat, coz he frankly has no idea. 

28 minutes ago, Gawndy the Great said:

I would respectfully disagree. In none of the previous games since 22 SF have we  ever looked like we had the game on our terms. 
Use whatever excuse you want, they have us worked out. They continually get us at stoppage and deny us the ball with their uncontested style game. 
Tell me how it’s not a magic spell and Goody will hire you in a heart beat, coz he frankly has no idea. 

“They have us worked out” is such a nothing statement though. 

2022 semi final we were shot, Trac had a broken leg, Gawn was stuffed, we still beat them for clearances and contested possessions and if we hadn’t kicked 11.13 we probably win anyway. 

2 of those 4 games we win clearances and contested possessions so I don’t think “continually get us at stoppage” is accurate. If Gawn could start tapping it somewhere near our mids instead of there’s it would certainly help though. 

We were bad on Thursday, I think it was a one off. I don’t think there’s a secret method that shows teams how to keep Trac and Oliver to 20 or less disposals otherwise every team would be doing it. 

On 15/04/2024 at 16:28, binman said:

Totally reasonable questions.

Which point to another aspect to not ignoring the issue of fatigue.

If you accept fatigue plays a big role in the outcome of any given match then it is reasonable to critique the performance of the high performance team, decisions like not bringing in fresher players  (eg would Laurie have been a better option than Clarry?) or target specific games at the potential expense of others. 

Alternatively, we knew Clarry needed the surgery but he also desperately needs the kms in the legs. Same as Petty. Think the aim is building match fitness for both these boys.

2 hours ago, Gawndy the Great said:

I noticed in the podcast on here that we talked about 3 games in 13 days as a major factor / reason. Whilst I don’t doubt fatigue was involved, 3 in 13 is actually almost 1 game every 7 days, which isn’t really all that bad. Lions were at 3 in 14 days so that is hardly a difference to explain the monumental differences.

 You could say that we have played 1 extra game than the lions in the same time frame alluding to the bye round that Lions already have but at this early stage of the season , does this really matter?

I refuse to accept this as an excuse and I think it was a very small factor in the whole scheme of things. Doing so is really not doing the required game analysis to really understand how we need to play against them. Our brand does not stack up anymore. 
 

Lions have the formula to beat us and have essentially done so in 3/4 last encounters - let’s be fair it’s lucky they are not 4/4. They know how to beat us and do so comprehensively. This is a coaching failure more than anything else. 

Strength of schedule plays a major factor. Brissy schedule since rnd 2 has been a bye, Underdone Pies and North. 

Completely different to a bruising game against port and Adelaide.

3 minutes ago, MrFreeze said:

Alternatively, we knew Clarry needed the surgery but he also desperately needs the kms in the legs. Same as Petty. Think the aim is building match fitness for both these boys.

Agree. I think that is almost certainly the case for both Petts and Clarry (i did also think that perhaps they figure the best thing for clarry's mental health is playing). 

Which goes to my point i just made in another thread that they don't always give themselves the best chance of winning specific matches.

For example, if they looked at the Lions game in isolation and the only goal was to win the match, then perhaps they play Laurie ahead of Oliver.

But until we get to the business end of the year there are always other considerations, eg building the match fitness of critical players (eg picking Tmac and BBB for round one when both were clearly underdone) or maximizing the likelihood we are in optimal shape come finals. 

On 15/04/2024 at 15:42, Rab D Nesbitt said:

I've got less buy into the '3 games in 13' days narrative than some others. If every side played a game every 7 days they'd still be playing 3 games in 15 days. We had a 7 day gap leading into the Port game and the same leading into the Brisbane game. Travel time was a 1 hour flight each way over a week apart. From a psychological perspective we then had a 13 days gap that included some 'down time' to look forward to after throwing everything at the Lions. I certainly think it started to show in the last quarter of the Crows game however when we were coming off a 5 day gap and went goalless. 

That said, almost the entire side looked flat on Thursday night, couldn't cover ground and spread quickly or break lines, made poor decisions and fumbled possession constantly. Losing Salo early didn't help our ball movement and transition and being without Kozzie's pressure (both perceived and real) and dynamism robbed us of the ability to create goals out of half chances and made it easier for the opposition to move the ball out of their own defence. In our engine room we know that Vines had been ill the week before and Clazz was playing literally with one hand. We were also robbed of both Koz and Salo as midfield rotations. 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think our performance had more to do with injuries and suspension to some of our most important players which our B graders couldn't make up for unfortunately. 

Lions were coming off

Bye

8 day break

6 day break

Dees

7 day break 

5 day break 

7 day break

3 games in 23 days vs 4 games in 19 days. So whilst we won’t overlook the fundamental errors, I believe it’s the 4 game streak and we would have set ourselves mentally for the 2 Adelaide games. No excuses but consider it was a factor 

1 hour ago, Gawndy the Great said:

I would respectfully disagree. In none of the previous games since 22 SF have we  ever looked like we had the game on our terms. 
Use whatever excuse you want, they have us worked out. They continually get us at stoppage and deny us the ball with their uncontested style game. 
Tell me how it’s not a magic spell and Goody will hire you in a heart beat, coz he frankly has no idea. 

We had the MCG game on our terms last year for most of the first quarter and part of the last. 

Regardless, the “magic spell” isn’t some sort of secret formula that only Brisbane have. It’s just talent - they’re a good side and are capable of matching/beating us in the middle. Any side who can do that can beat us.

They haven’t “worked us out” anymore than anyone else has. They’re just better than most other sides. 

26 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

We had the MCG game on our terms last year for most of the first quarter and part of the last. 

Regardless, the “magic spell” isn’t some sort of secret formula that only Brisbane have. It’s just talent - they’re a good side and are capable of matching/beating us in the middle. Any side who can do that can beat us.

They haven’t “worked us out” anymore than anyone else has. They’re just better than most other sides. 

Spot on.

They were flag favorites before the season started. 

Poor start to the season, but they'll be there or there about when the whips are cracking.

The other factor is that some sides, for a range of reasons, match up well against specific sides.

Brisbane match up well against us:

- their midfield is not miles of ours 

- we haven't had the leg speed to exploit their lack of leg speed

- their talls can negate maxy in those critical down the line marking contests

- and we struggle to cover their four excellent medium forwards

 

3 hours ago, Gawndy the Great said:

I would respectfully disagree. In none of the previous games since 22 SF have we  ever looked like we had the game on our terms. 
Use whatever excuse you want, they have us worked out. They continually get us at stoppage and deny us the ball with their uncontested style game. 
Tell me how it’s not a magic spell and Goody will hire you in a heart beat, coz he frankly has no idea. 

They come at us hard because we embarrassed them so often, particularly at the end of 22. I’m not buying any excuses about days per match. I’m simply looking at what I see. A team that was clearly tired and beat up against a side ready and up for the fight. My view might change post the Carlton game 

Charlie Cameron gets off a sling tackle because he does alot of great work in indigenous communities.

I have heard it all now.

 

1 hour ago, titan_uranus said:

We had the MCG game on our terms last year for most of the first quarter and part of the last. 

Regardless, the “magic spell” isn’t some sort of secret formula that only Brisbane have. It’s just talent - they’re a good side and are capable of matching/beating us in the middle. Any side who can do that can beat us.

They haven’t “worked us out” anymore than anyone else has. They’re just better than most other sides. 

That game last year they put the cue in the rack at 3Q time and could never arrest the momentum we put on the game. They lost it more than we won it. Don’t get me wrong I was over the moon but we didn’t deserve to win that game.

After we got the jump on them in 1st quarter they were able to get to work and gain ascendancy relatively easily. It just took half a quarter. It’s scary how easily it was done. 

Last week was a similar story. They made us look second rate. Yes fatigue factored in but that again was 12+ goal game. if they hadn’t put the cue in the rack.

The Tigers game will tell us nothing if we win given how depleted they are. Games against Cats and Blues will give us the data we need to get a read on how we are truly going for the season. If we are 6-3 or better I’d be saying we going ok tracking somewhere about 4-8 on the ladder. 

 

3 hours ago, Pennant St Dee said:

 

Lions were coming off

Bye

8 day break

6 day break

Dees

7 day break 

5 day break 

7 day break

3 games in 23 days vs 4 games in 19 days. So whilst we won’t overlook the fundamental errors, I believe it’s the 4 game streak and we would have set ourselves mentally for the 2 Adelaide games. No excuses but consider it was a factor 

If it was Round 20 I’d say you were onto something, but not after 5 gAmes.