PDA

View Full Version : tigers game


stefoid
15 May 2004, 20:07
summary: For most of the first three quarters our midfield was well up on their opponents, led by West and Johno both of whom were unstoppable. At one stage we must have been something like 6 goals 18 to their 8 goals 5. We could not buy a goal for love or money. You name any distance or angle, and we had a set shot from there and failed to score. Our ain forward target Rawlings was not our main forward target, and he took their best tallest defender, so our other forwards were against shorter/slower opponents all day, and they capitalized on the mismatches everywhere but the scoreboard.

Basically, the game should have been on ice halfway through the third quarter, with us up by 6 goals and the tigers loosing heart. Instead, the uncanny and probably never to be repeated accuracy of richo in front of goals for the tigers kept them in the game all day as he outmarked and a variety of opponents. Our campaign to kick three straight goals in a row and thus kill the game fell apart with some horrible errors late in the third, resulting in easy richmonds rebound goals.

In the last quarter, with their tails up and richo on a rampage, we looked to have given up the ghost, and ruchmond cruised home to a relatively easy win.

To say that richo was the difference between the two sides is an understatement.

Q) why wasnt rawlings tried on richo? - instead he was benched.
Q) why didnt we play a loose man in defence to double team richo? Grant could have played that role, and hargreave or basset could have taken the schmuck that grant was playing on.

Players:
West, Johno: killed their opponents. Anhialated them. fantatsic games

Smith: played his usual excellent game except he could kick any of his trademark goals. I think he was so scared of trying that he just popped it up into the square instead of going for it. Didnt seem like he could kick over 45m today.

Grant: was everywhere taking saving marks, usual grant game. his footy brain is his best asset these days.

Darce: rucked well enough, and had his chances when forward, and created a few goals with bullocking work and assists

Street: rucked well enough, had some nice directed taps at times. actually watched where he ran and was pleased to find that he shadowed ottens all over the ground, in other words didnt find it much himself, but by the same token, the opposition didnt have a huge ruck target free in their forward line (not that they needed it today)

Murph: started in the centre, and did OK without setting the world on fire. Made some shocking kicking errors early. Doesnt seem to have the motor to play on ball, when will rhode put him on a wing and leave him there?

Hahn and Gido: spent the first part of the game mostly in attack, hahn crumbed well enough, probably our best in that regard. Guido did some nice things on the ball, and played well there, but was let down by his kicking for goal in the end. Our players looked like they were playing with a flat ball - no penetration in their kicking for goal.

Eagleton. I was seething with this guy in the third. He is there to kick the ball!!!! KICK KICK KICK!!! bloody floating hospital handpasses to put people under pressure. He showed what a beutiful kick of the ball he can be early in the 4th, with a 70m kick to the hotspot, and thats what he should be doing whenever he gets the ball and cant find a free target. he justnt isnt quick enough mentally to play an inside/handballing type of game. Probably out of everybody, it was him that I most remember as killing our momentum and spirit to win in the third qaurter.

bowden: was lively and presented well, did some nice work in trafic too. Has a tendancy to wait for the perfect lead - should have given off the ball on a number of occasions to the first option, but held onto it too long and got us into trouble, but overall a good game.

harison: started on richo but was moved fairly early and came on again for a second try later. wasnt the worst guy to play on richo is about all I can say of his game. tried hard.

Basset: see harrison

hargreave: same criticisms as last time in that he scrgas and gives away frees, but hey, the guy was playing on an opponent who was so much taller and stronger than him, what could he do? complete mismatch.

Kmac: was also mismatched against richo, but tried to give us some run out of defence later in the game. didnt work very well, but probably worth perservering with next week.

croft: started forward, didnt get much of an opportunity early, then went onto richo and was killed. later in the game when forward again got more ball directed at him, consistantly got beat by his direct opponent in one on ones either in the air or at ground level. looked a bit lost. At this stage of the year, and with our finals hopes officially gone, I would look at playing Kmac, Basset, Skipper and hargreve and leaving croft and harrison out to pasture in the 2s.

Cooney: kind of a trademark cooney game. he was frustrated out there today, continually made position but was not used when he should have been. basically he never seems to get a chance to get the ball in space or a 1:1 because he isnt used by our other players. only chance he gets is to arrive late to a contest.

Robbo: could have kicked 4, chased well, tackled etc... kicking, kicking... not really a great crumber, likes to run in straight lines. but probably worth continuing the experiment.

Hmmm our guests have arrived. someone want to finish this post.....

rioli17
16 May 2004, 00:05
Originally posted by stefoid
summary:
Robbo: could have kicked 4, ...

mate .he would never kick 4 unless every shot was from the goal line following a 50m penalty..I saw better looking kicks at auskick this morning when i went to get the bread

Monkster
16 May 2004, 00:44
Originally posted by rioli17
mate .he would never kick 4 unless every shot was from the goal line following a 50m penalty..I saw better looking kicks at auskick this morning when i went to get the bread

You mean better than the near goal (that was marked behind the line) from the forward pocket in the 3rd?

Fishfinger
16 May 2004, 00:51
Originally posted by Monkster
You mean better than the near goal (that was marked behind the line) from the forward pocket in the 3rd? You must have sat near me, that was marked a foot over. At least Bowden kicked the goal and justice prevailed.

Monkster
16 May 2004, 09:53
Originally posted by Fishfinger
You must have sat near me, that was marked a foot over. At least Bowden kicked the goal and justice prevailed.

Actually I saw it on TV (I'm in Brisbane) even from the TV angle you could tell it was over, and IMO that other one went no where near the post.

sandeano
16 May 2004, 11:23
If you don't mind a comment from a Richmond supporter...

...I was at yesterday's game and, for a change, sat in the top deck of the Southern stand which gave me a splendid view of the entire ground on a gorgeous summer's day.

From that vantage point it was possible to get a fair idea of each team's strategy in taking the ball from one end to the other and I must say that, in that regard, the Bulldogs were well on top of the Tigers. I was very impressed with your mob's ability to stick to the centre guts of the ground and move it through quickly with numbers, rather than Richmond's frustrating perseverance with aiming for the flanks and the wings and dribbling it about incessantly.

Luckily for us, although we were killed between the 50m arcs, the Doggies just fell to pieces outside of the mid-field. Of course I'm not telling you anything you don't already know, but there was a visible dropping of heads once they'd missed six gettable goals (along with several other forays into the forward line) only to see a rare Richmond attack result in a goal to Richo.

I would say that it was only the last twenty minutes of the game that Richmond were on top and that the Bulldogs should have had us on toast well before that moment.

Now I can understand the anger about Rhode's inability to curtail Richo (which was inexcusable) but apart from that I would be pointing the finger at the players, APART from those in the midfield, who carved us to pieces.

Realy, I would not think it is a senior coach's job to be ensuring that highly paid footballers can kick at goal with accuracy. A general cannot (and should not) be expected to ensur that every private has polished his boots correctly. That is the job of his subordinates. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the Dogs have endured a number of coaching staff cutbacks recently, leaving most of the work to Rhode? If that is the case then I sympathise with him. Gameplans are one thing, but basic goalkicking errors are another. To all those calling for his head, I would suggest that you pull yours in a little. Sure, Richo was unstoppable, but had a few more of those kicks resulted in majors then I'm positive that the balance of confidence would have weighed heavily on your side and shown on the scoreboard.

Best of luck for the rest of the season. if those elementary mistakes can be corrected then you'll be far higher on the ladder than you currently are.

ExMrBlonde
16 May 2004, 13:23
Originally posted by sandeano
Best of luck for the rest of the season. if those elementary mistakes can be corrected then you'll be far higher on the ladder than you currently are.

The problem is, we've been telling ourselves that for the best part of 3 seasons !!!

Having the highest 'Against' column on the AFL Ladder tells a very true story of the Bulldogs this year.. that has nothing to do with the 'mistakes' that people attribute to our game (ie goalkicking).

The doggies will NOT climb up the ladder if they maintain the pathetic average score of 113 points kicked against us so far this year.. St Kilda's average FOR column is 112 FFS (and we all know how well they're going) !!!

We don't need to eradicate mistakes, we need to invent a backline !!!

And to think Rhoder's motto was ACCOUNTABILITY !!!

Pffftttt !!!

stefoid
16 May 2004, 13:28
Originally posted by stefoid
summary: For most of the first three quarters our midfield was well up on their opponents, led by West and Johno both of whom were unstoppable. At one stage we must have been something like 6 goals 18 to their 8 goals 5. We could not buy a goal for love or money. You name any distance or angle, and we had a set shot from there and failed to score. Our ain forward target Rawlings was not our main forward target, and he took their best tallest defender, so our other forwards were against shorter/slower opponents all day, and they capitalized on the mismatches everywhere but the scoreboard.

Basically, the game should have been on ice halfway through the third quarter, with us up by 6 goals and the tigers loosing heart. Instead, the uncanny and probably never to be repeated accuracy of richo in front of goals for the tigers kept them in the game all day as he outmarked and a variety of opponents. Our campaign to kick three straight goals in a row and thus kill the game fell apart with some horrible errors late in the third, resulting in easy richmonds rebound goals.

In the last quarter, with their tails up and richo on a rampage, we looked to have given up the ghost, and ruchmond cruised home to a relatively easy win.

To say that richo was the difference between the two sides is an understatement.

Q) why wasnt rawlings tried on richo? - instead he was benched.
Q) why didnt we play a loose man in defence to double team richo? Grant could have played that role, and hargreave or basset could have taken the schmuck that grant was playing on.

Players:
West, Johno: killed their opponents. Anhialated them. fantatsic games

Smith: played his usual excellent game except he could kick any of his trademark goals. I think he was so scared of trying that he just popped it up into the square instead of going for it. Didnt seem like he could kick over 45m today.

Grant: was everywhere taking saving marks, usual grant game. his footy brain is his best asset these days.

Darce: rucked well enough, and had his chances when forward, and created a few goals with bullocking work and assists

Street: rucked well enough, had some nice directed taps at times. actually watched where he ran and was pleased to find that he shadowed ottens all over the ground, in other words didnt find it much himself, but by the same token, the opposition didnt have a huge ruck target free in their forward line (not that they needed it today)

Murph: started in the centre, and did OK without setting the world on fire. Made some shocking kicking errors early. Doesnt seem to have the motor to play on ball, when will rhode put him on a wing and leave him there?

Hahn and Gido: spent the first part of the game mostly in attack, hahn crumbed well enough, probably our best in that regard. Guido did some nice things on the ball, and played well there, but was let down by his kicking for goal in the end. Our players looked like they were playing with a flat ball - no penetration in their kicking for goal.

Eagleton. I was seething with this guy in the third. He is there to kick the ball!!!! KICK KICK KICK!!! bloody floating hospital handpasses to put people under pressure. He showed what a beutiful kick of the ball he can be early in the 4th, with a 70m kick to the hotspot, and thats what he should be doing whenever he gets the ball and cant find a free target. he justnt isnt quick enough mentally to play an inside/handballing type of game. Probably out of everybody, it was him that I most remember as killing our momentum and spirit to win in the third qaurter.

bowden: was lively and presented well, did some nice work in trafic too. Has a tendancy to wait for the perfect lead - should have given off the ball on a number of occasions to the first option, but held onto it too long and got us into trouble, but overall a good game.

harison: started on richo but was moved fairly early and came on again for a second try later. wasnt the worst guy to play on richo is about all I can say of his game. tried hard.

Basset: see harrison

hargreave: same criticisms as last time in that he scrgas and gives away frees, but hey, the guy was playing on an opponent who was so much taller and stronger than him, what could he do? complete mismatch.

Kmac: was also mismatched against richo, but tried to give us some run out of defence later in the game. didnt work very well, but probably worth perservering with next week.

croft: started forward, didnt get much of an opportunity early, then went onto richo and was killed. later in the game when forward again got more ball directed at him, consistantly got beat by his direct opponent in one on ones either in the air or at ground level. looked a bit lost. At this stage of the year, and with our finals hopes officially gone, I would look at playing Kmac, Basset, Skipper and hargreve and leaving croft and harrison out to pasture in the 2s.

Cooney: kind of a trademark cooney game. he was frustrated out there today, continually made position but was not used when he should have been. basically he never seems to get a chance to get the ball in space or a 1:1 because he isnt used by our other players. only chance he gets is to arrive late to a contest.

Robbo: could have kicked 4, chased well, tackled etc... kicking, kicking... not really a great crumber, likes to run in straight lines. but probably worth continuing the experiment.

Hmmm our guests have arrived. someone want to finish this post.....

Faulkner. didnt get much game time. still didnt look that much like the crumber we need. I still think ray with his quick clean hands and quick everything really is our best bet. starting to agree that bursts on the ball, maybe on the wing are the way to ease him into a full time senior birth.

Gilbee: didnt get much of it, but looked poised and assued when he had it, which is a good sign. where was he playing? didnt really notice, but I presume in defence.

boyd: did some nice work, loved his lookaway pass to guido who was also fooled and didnt know he was getting the ball until it hit him on the chest. (kicked a point from 40m, slight angle) had more onball time with guido and han playing forwardin the first half, and correspondingly had more possies with 19. Pity he didnt get to have a few shots on goal, because he is capable of potting them from 50.

rawlings: well, can remember him getting too many passes to his leads. was richmond doing a good job chopping off his space? was he not leading well? were we ignoring him
? maybe all 3. didnt get many chances and was benched during the same period that richo was kicking goals at will against midget opponents. he is a good player and will be back, I wouldnt read too much into it.

stevebiscuit
16 May 2004, 14:12
i think biyd may well develop and take over the smith role at HBF. Their builds look similar and he runs the lines and ca kick long.

Leon
16 May 2004, 20:19
I'm not really all that sure about Rohde's choice of Boyd on Brown.

Boyd it still inexperienced and hasn't really been given a major stopping role against a player of Brown's ability in the past.

So why give the task of minding someone who we know all too well just how damaging he can be to a player that has played so few games?

That said, Boyd's endeavour against Brown was very good and the fact that Brown played so well is more a reflection on Brown and not Boyd.

But every time Brown got the ball he caused damage.

Even though I'm questioning Rohde on several things yesterday, I do give him a bit of leeway in that if we knew how to kick straight maybe the performances of Richo and Brown would've been irrelevant.

Curly5
16 May 2004, 20:27
Originally posted by Leon
Even though I'm questioning Rohde on several things yesterday, I do give him a bit of leeway in that if we knew how to kick straight maybe the performances of Richo and Brown would've been irrelevant.
Exactly. We only needed 5 of those 22 points to have been goals to win the game. Richo could have still had his glory but we'd have won.

Toffeeman
16 May 2004, 20:47
Originally posted by ExMrBlonde
The problem is, we've been telling ourselves that for the best part of 3 seasons !!!

Having the highest 'Against' column on the AFL Ladder tells a very true story of the Bulldogs this year.. that has nothing to do with the 'mistakes' that people attribute to our game (ie goalkicking).

The doggies will NOT climb up the ladder if they maintain the pathetic average score of 113 points kicked against us so far this year.. St Kilda's average FOR column is 112 FFS (and we all know how well they're going) !!!

We don't need to eradicate mistakes, we need to invent a backline !!!

And to think Rhoder's motto was ACCOUNTABILITY !!!

Pffftttt !!!

I don't think our backline is doing to bad in all honesty, it's more of the midfield coughing the ball up too easily or not manning up. The ball just keeps coming in to our 50 with no pressure, something has got to give with that much pressure on the defence. I thought Bassett was going alright on Richo. He got a goal from a dodgy free kick and a couple of others which were good low marks which Bassett couldn't have stopped. We need the sparre man in defence to play just in front to cut those passes off. Also the fact that Richmond had so much time to think about the pass and make sure it was a good one again comes back to our midfield not manning up.

dogsbody
16 May 2004, 20:55
I thought the problem was more that it came out of defence so easily.

bLuEMoOsE
16 May 2004, 21:14
Boyd was great again loved his first quater of half back made Brown look bad... but as great players do Brown cam back... still ended up with 15-18 possies a few marks and tacklets along with some nice kicks into the forward line with some good in and under

Top Dog
16 May 2004, 22:08
Originally posted by dogsbody
I thought the problem was more that it came out of defence so easily.

And into such an open forward line with some precise kicks. On the other hand we were kicking it into a congested forward line; hence the shots from 40+ metres and the resulting 22 points.

PS: One of the most frustrating games I've ever been to.

dogsbody
16 May 2004, 22:28
A puzzle that, Topdog. I thought our approach was more direct than Richmonds yet they seemed to be able to get numbers back quicker than us. Was it that our midfielders were running too far ahead of the ball again ?