What to add after all these posts watching the game from the FP, northern end?
As we wasted opportunity after opportunity - and not just set shots - in Q1, there was an inevitability it would prove costly and we would probably fade anyway given the experience in the Brisbane line up and the fact that Stringer would fade.
It was Stringer’s presence that fired us in Q1 - like it did when he returned in Round 3 against the Saints last year - and the whole team lifted around him. No surprise he finished the quarter with equal high 6 contested possessions. He looked every bit the leader that Heppell is not and Heppell was again woeful. His reaction times seem a split second slower and he no longer commits his body to contests like he used to. As @VanDerHaar mentioned to me in Q3, the game seems to have passed Heppell by, like with Smith.
If ever the numbers tell a tale with a game, it was this one; although there is one odd stat:
- We kicked 5.9 from set shots and the Lions kicked 9.1. The 22 point differential is what the Lions won by.
- We dominated contested possessions by by 14 at qtr time, 22 at half time, got to +25 early in Q3 but as Neale started to dominate that dropped to 18 by 3QT. By the end of the game we won contested possession by only 5. So, after quarter time we lost contested possessions by 9, but we lost them by 20 from early in Q3. Over a whole game that would extrapolate to a 40+ loss in contested possession which is what happened against Geelong.
- We dominated clearances 11-2 at QT with 6-0 centre clearances and stoppage clearances 5-2.
By HT, the numbers were 18-10 overall with 8-6 out of the centre and 10-4 at stoppages.
By 3QT it was 25-24 overall with 14-10 from the centre and 11-14 at stoppages (Neale factor).
At FT it was 30-37 overall with 16-13 out of the centre and 14-24 at stoppages.
So, after QT, we lost clearances by 16 primarily because we were destroyed at stoppages (9-22). I will provide my reasons further below for this. - Amazingly, the Lions had 11 more turnovers than we did. By itself that should have seen them lose, but it didn’t. I’ll also provide my reasons below.
- After QT, as we all know, we were outscored by 44 points kicking 6.10 to the Lions 14.6. Aside from the turnover stat, the other stats all lead to the numbers on the scoreboard. Extrapolate the last 3 quarters over a full game and that equates to about a 10 goal loss which is what normally happens when we play a Top 4 side.
So, whilst Stringer has the burst energy to play as a power mid we can match it with a Top 4 side. Once he fades into the forward line because he is more forward than mid, we have nothing close to him to put into the midfield.
So, why the rapid losses on clearance, stoppages and the scoreboard after QT?
There is more than one answer and it is an indictment on Rutten’s coaching:
- At QT, Fagan moved Berry onto Merrett who had 12 possessions in Q1. I would have had him as second best on ground after Stringer. He had 9 more in Q2. After HT he only had 10. Our best ball user was shut down. How unsurprising that Fagan would deploy a tagger but Rutten won’t on a rampant Neale after HT because “we want to play our game”. How arrogant. “Our game” is actually one of a bottom 4 side so I would be looking to change it ASAP, not defend it.
- The Berry move had a double effect at stoppage clearances where there is more congestion than in the centre. It was Berry’s tackling of Merrett whenever Draper (who I thought was our best player) tapped it down him. You see this in Neale’s snapped goal from a stoppage in Q4. The ball is deep in the Lion’s forward line and Draper taps it beautifully to Merrett who is immediately tackled strongly. The ball pops out and an unmarked Neale simply picks up the ball and snaps an easy goal. If any one stoppage is symptomatic of the game after QT it was that stoppage. Who was the #1 tackler in what was a low tackling game? Berry, of course (with 5).
- That wasn’t the only negative move Fagan made at QT. The other was instructing his ruckman to play as an extra tall defender on Wright when we would be moving the ball forward in a slow, handball mad, sloppy way. At one point (I think in Q4), McInerney was actually marking Wright whilst Andrews played as the spare defender. Draper did drift forward but was never a chance of drawing the ball given we never had any intention of moving it directly forward by foot. We forever persisted with sideways handball to a teammate invariably under more pressure.
- Because we used the ball so poorly going forward - and kicked poorly at goal when we did generate a set shot - we couldn’t punish the numerous more turnovers the Lions had. The Lions didn’t so much score from turnovers as score from stoppages after QT with Neale running increasingly rampant. Unfortunately, I can’t find a site that shows the scoring breakdown.
Yes, we are a young side. Yes, we will fade over a game over a seasoned and bigger-bodied side. But, right now, we have a coach who refuses to accept you need balance “playing your own game” versus “neutralising the opposition’s best/most dangerous player”. Fagan was prepared to do so but Rutten was not. In a nutshell that is why we lost. My faith in Rutten being a good coach is all but gone. He refuses to learn as a coach and condemns his side to groundhog day defeats as the opposition’s best mids are free to run rampant, “unchecked”, as we “play our game” to a 10 goal (or equivalent) loss against a Top 4 side.
And the time is rapidly coming, if it hasn’t already arrived, for Heppell and Dev Smith to be told the game has passed them by and dropped, Ham to be permanently dropped and Cutler and Stewart to be dropped as me eventually get some players back. It’s also time to put players in their natural. instinctive positions on the ground e.g. Francis back (to replace Heppell), McGrath back to defence (what was he doing as a HF after HT? Had zero impact on the game) or to play as a run with mid on the likes of Neale. And to play a second ruck/forward (e.g. Phillips) so Wright can stay permanently forward like all full forwards do for the top sides (Hawkins, Franklin, Daniher, Lynch, Brown).
Notice a pattern? Top 4 side coaches do a lot of things that Rutten refuses to do, like play a 3rd tall forward who can genuinely ruck, like deploy a tagger on a rampant opposition mid, etc.
Even as we get players back and become more experienced. we will not be a Top 4 side under Rutten as he refuses to adapt the key attributes of other Top 4 sides that help make them a Top 4 side.