After all the drama of the last week, the big questions leading into this crucial game were around how Adelaide would respond, both mentally and strategically.
The team we saw over the past fortnight, smashed by Melbourne, looked like it simply didn't want to be there. Unhappy.
At the final whistle last week it looked for all a Melbourne-Roar grand final. Vidmar's rant shifted things, forcing a heart-to-heart between the club and the players, clearing a few gripes (at least for now), and suddenly all the talk was about everyone being back on the same page.
The proof of course would be in the actions on the field tonight.
One way to often gauge the mood of this Adelaide unit is to listen closely to the the pre-match tone of their skipper. It tells much.
Throughout the ACL he was upbeat. Shortly afterwards his tone was tired and lethargic, and his team's performance followed that mood. Against Melbourne, ahead of the major semi second leg, you had no doubt from listening to Dodd speak to Fox in the pre-match that Adelaide had no hope.
Tonight the quietly confident tone was back. Mentally, Adelaide seemed happy again. They were up for it.
Now for the strategy.
For much of the season Adelaide had built it's success on a simple format; 4-2-3-1, defend deep, compete in midfield with three busy central men, keep the ball when you win it and counter swiftly when the opportunities present. Foundation first, attack to follow.
In recent times they had gone away from that template, playing a far more open game. It often comprised of only one holder, Reid, at times in a 4-4-2, with only two central midfielders. Against Melbourne it proved a disaster, with Reid and Pantelis powerless to deal with the movement of Hernandez, Ward, Allsopp, Thompson and Pondeljak. There were holes everywhere, and Hernandez had a field day.
Other times, when Vidmar has played three in central midfield, it's been Reid deep, Barbiero in the half-and-half role and Pantelis as the attacking central midfielder. The emphasis has been on attack, and it hasn't looked balanced.
Here it was return to the more defensive template of the first half of the season, with Salley adding muscle in midfield, Reid playing alongside him and Barbiero playing in the attacking role.
Elsewhere Pantelis was deployed in his rightful place on the flank, while Dodd was restored wide-right.
All three central men were very good, helping suffocate McKay and Murdocca. There was still a little too much space for Nichols, whose mobility, strength and game-sense troubled Adelaide. Nichols had most of the Roar's chances and should learn from a rare off night in front of goal.
Salley in particular was very strong. Interestingly, while most, including me, expected him to sit in the hole, in front of his back four, Salley was often found higher up the midfield. The objective was clear; get in McKay and Murdocca's face. It worked a treat.
The other keys to controlling Queensland were in defence, where Mullen did an outstanding job on Zullo, rarely allowing him to get in behind, while Ognenovski and Cornthwaite took turns in controlling van Dijk. Jamieson had it all over Cernak and was back to his marauding best.
The defensive platform set, the mood back, Adelaide looked like the organised side that had blunted so many sides in Australia and beyond. Barbiero's bomb was enough, despite relying on some good fortune after the late injection of Miller.
As for Queensland, they had most of the better chances and will be guttered not have have made Asia, a place that suits their ambitions (and geography) perhaps more than most.
Adelaide, having finally shaken the finals monkey, can now plan to try and finally get one over Melbourne. Strategically, now that their nullifying template is back, they have a chance, but Vidmar's biggest challenge this week will undoubtedly be the mental side.
No doubt the context of youth and disappointment needs to be factored into an assessment of these words from gun Roar youngster Michael Zullo, but they also emphasise the festering attitude that has been doing the rounds of late; that you can only gain a result by playing positive, go-forward football, all the time.
Let's get one thing straight for starters. It wasn't for the whole second half that Adelaide put up the shutters. Indeed, for the first 15 minutes of the second stanza I felt they had a calculated crack at Queensland, with the objective clearly to pinch a second on the counter.
As Andy Harper noted during his commentary about 15 or 20 minutes into the second period, it was a surprise that Adelaide hadn't tried to shut-up-shop earlier.
The decision, for me, to shut up shop effectively came in the 75th minute, when Cristiano was replaced by Agostino.
The Brazilian is a player capable on playing in a counter-attacking formation, and he almost proved it with an enterprising run and volley from the right-hand edge of the box that was drilled hard at Reddy.
Agostino is an altogether different player, a target man that likes to get on the end of things inside the box. He is more suited to pressing style, when Adelaide are on the front foot and he can hurl himself around, trying to get on the end of crosses. A counter attacker he isn't.
So, by introducing Agostino, Vidmar was effectively only using him to hassle and pressure the defenders. Adelaide killed any hope of trying to grab a second. That's when the ‘closed' sign went up.
And in any case, what's wrong with attempting to kill the game after going one-up. The reality is that you have to be organised and extremely disciplined to pull it off, and only the best teams have the ability to defend a lead for long periods.
Teams all over the world try to do it. It's a gamble. Sometimes it works, but often it doesn't. Italy, for example, has had as much success at defending a lead as they've had failures. I vividly remember the 2000 European championship final, when France's Wiltord banged in an equaliser deep into stoppage time, and Le Bleus went on to win it in extra time. The Azzurri, in clichéd style, had gambled on defending their 1-0 lead and lost.
Aurelio Vidmar gambled on Saturday, had his fair share of luck, and won.
Of course, we all love teams that win with quality and class, none more so than this correspondent, but even the classiest teams often rely on a degree of pragmatism to get what they want.
I remember Barcelona winning their only European cup a few years ago. That belated success was on the back of a pragmatic approach, as I wrote at the time.
One can't always win playing pretty, and while we love it when it works, very few are successful at it consistently.
Indeed, it's an admirable quality to be able to acquire results, something that Australian teams (national and club) have traditionally not been very strong at.
There are signs though that we are learning, and learning quick, and Pim Verbeek and Aurelio Vidmar have lead the way in this regard over the past 12 to 18 months.
There was a fair degree of criticism in the blogsphere and beyond about the Socceroos' cagey, defensive performance on the road in Tokyo. Given the context of the opposition, our preparation and the need to consolidate top spot, some of the comment lacked perspective, I felt.
Catching up with a Czech mate over the weekend, we got talking about Australia's run. He agreed Verbeek had done an outstanding job in getting Australia to where we are, and sighted an example from his own country ahead of the 1996 European Championships when the then Czech coach Dusan Uhrin and his striker Pavel Kuka said the perfect campaign would entail winning at home and drawing on the road. Sound familiar?
Of course, we now know the Czechs went on to not only qualify for the tourni, but make it all the way to the final, playing some wonderful stuff after doing the job to get to there.
Back in Adelaide, and having calculated their way into the grand final, Vidmar would be best served by adopting a similar strategy; solid and organised across the pitch, tight at the back, with just enough punch in attack to create a chance or two.
Finding that recipe against the Victory has proved difficult this season, but grabbing that first goal might just give them enough belief to defend it.