View Full Version : Hooly shirt!!!
The Tigers Crows game produced a combined total of 662 possessions and a record 283 marks, of which only 18 were contested. :eek:
The sooner the interchange bench gets a limit on it the better. I am not having a go at either the Tigers or the Crows here, but we will see more and more of this from ALL the teams unless something gets done to the interchange bench.
Those are bad bad stats. :thumbsd:
Stiffy_18
21 May 2006, 11:21
There is a very simple way to get rid off this. Just don't allow the kick backward backward of center. If they kick backwards, then its play on. I guarantee you the possesions would have halved from yesterdays game and Bowden brothers wouldn't have suffered of leather poisoning.
Joel Bowden had 15 possesions in the 2nd quarter and I :D:D:D:D you not but 13 of those were in his defensive 50 from tigers kicking backwards to him. Not great from spectators point of view but a great tactic by richmond to deny us the ball.
Mad Dog
21 May 2006, 11:21
it was a shocker...:thumbsd:
yes we have employed similar tactics this year....but not to that extent - and eventually we've gone forward and still kicked very good scores each game.
Thankfully Richmond's tactics will only prevent them getting belted....not make them serious contenders....so eventually they will be discarded
Mad Dog
21 May 2006, 11:24
There is a very simple way to get rid off this. Just don't allow the kick backward backward of center. If they kick backwards, then its play on. .
While I hate tampering with the game - I think it's time....:(
While I hate tampering with the game - I think it's time....:(
No, that would be tinkering with the rules again.
The first big tinker that occurred was the interchange bench. That was a success, then they tinkered again and changed it to a four men one.
Since then we have tinkered heaps to counteract the bad effects that resulted from it.
That is treating the symptom rather than the cause. Doing that never works.
Coaches will be opposed to that, but make no mistake about it, no matter what reasons they give, the real reason for opposing it is because they use the expanded bench to try and cover up their mistakes, be they wrong selections, playing injured players or not having recruited properly in the first place.
If they had their way, we would have the whole squad on the sidelines like in Grid Iron. Once that happens, they will then push the cart to call time off so that they can plan their changes properly. :thumbsd:
Mad Dog
21 May 2006, 12:02
No, that would be tinkering with the rules again.
The first big tinker that occurred was the interchange bench. That was a success, then they tinkered again and changed it to a four men one.
Since then we have tinkered heaps to counteract the bad effects that resulted from it.
That is treating the symptom rather than the cause. Doing that never works.
Coaches will be opposed to that, but make no mistake about it, no matter what reasons they give, the real reason for opposing it is because they use the expanded bench to try and cover up their mistakes, be they wrong selections, playing injured players or not having recruited properly in the first place.
If they had their way, we would have the whole squad on the sidelines like in Grid Iron. Once that happens, they will then push the cart to call time off so that they can plan their changes properly. :thumbsd:
so are you advocating going back to a 2 man bench?
so are you advocating going back to a 2 man bench?
Dunno, 2 man interchange plus a couple of subs on top of that would be good IMO but it'll never happen.
Limiting it to 30 (7 per quarter + 2 more) or even 25 (6 per quarter plus 1 more) would be good though. 30 per game is one every 4 minutes, that should be plenty.
Interestingly that a number of coaches have come out against the 30 figure, but in reality that is about the average number used only a couple of years back.
IMO players like Matthews were so good because they didn't need to hide when tired. How good would Ricciuto be thought of if he played in the same era?
Also IMO the biggest change that has occurred because of the large number of interchanges available is the death of the footballer. Not quite there but well on the way.
Markthirtytwo
21 May 2006, 12:20
There is a very simple way to get rid off this. Just don't allow the kick backward backward of center. If they kick backwards, then its play on. I guarantee you the possesions would have halved from yesterdays game and Bowden brothers wouldn't have suffered of leather poisoning.
Joel Bowden had 15 possesions in the 2nd quarter and I :D:D:D:D you not but 13 of those were in his defensive 50 from tigers kicking backwards to him. Not great from spectators point of view but a great tactic by richmond to deny us the ball.
The other thing was a lot of the small distance kicks didnt travell the required 15 metres however were paid. That's also an area that need tightening up. Perhaps 30 metres might be better.
GoSydneySwans
21 May 2006, 12:23
it was a shocker...:thumbsd:
yes we have employed similar tactics this year....but not to that extent - and eventually we've gone forward and still kicked very good scores each game.
Thankfully Richmond's tactics will only prevent them getting belted....not make them serious contenders....so eventually they will be discarded
That's what everyone said about Sydney last year, until they realised that Sydney were actually winning games with their game plan. If Richmond can beat the best team in the competition playing like that, who can be sure that the same thing won't happen in the finals?
Markthirtytwo
21 May 2006, 12:27
That's what everyone said about Sydney last year, until they realised that Sydney were actually winning games with their game plan. If Richmond can beat the best team in the competition playing like that, who can be sure that the same thing won't happen in the finals?
But Sid-er-ney has more better quality players than Richmond.
And it took them at least a couple of years to perfect it.
No, that would be tinkering with the rules again.
The first big tinker that occurred was the interchange bench. That was a success, then they tinkered again and changed it to a four men one.
Since then we have tinkered heaps to counteract the bad effects that resulted from it.
That is treating the symptom rather than the cause. Doing that never works.
Coaches will be opposed to that, but make no mistake about it, no matter what reasons they give, the real reason for opposing it is because they use the expanded bench to try and cover up their mistakes, be they wrong selections, playing injured players or not having recruited properly in the first place.
If they had their way, we would have the whole squad on the sidelines like in Grid Iron. Once that happens, they will then push the cart to call time off so that they can plan their changes properly. :thumbsd:Great post
I would limit the amount of changes ie 6 a quarter
Mad Dog
21 May 2006, 12:55
Dunno, 2 man interchange plus a couple of subs on top of that would be good IMO but it'll never happen.
Limiting it to 30 (7 per quarter + 2 more) or even 25 (6 per quarter plus 1 more) would be good though. 30 per game is one every 4 minutes, that should be plenty.
Interestingly that a number of coaches have come out against the 30 figure, but in reality that is about the average number used only a couple of years back.
IMO players like Matthews were so good because they didn't need to hide when tired. How good would Ricciuto be thought of if he played in the same era? Also IMO the biggest change that has occurred because of the large number of interchanges available is the death of the footballer. Not quite there but well on the way.
a bit harsh - you can't compare players to other eras....Roo is playing to todays rules which allows rest time.
Truck Rutten
21 May 2006, 13:06
That's what everyone said about Sydney last year, until they realised that Sydney were actually winning games with their game plan. If Richmond can beat the best team in the competition playing like that, who can be sure that the same thing won't happen in the finals?
Richmond will be playing finals this year? At 4-4 with a percentage of 70, don't count on it.
RoosterLad
21 May 2006, 13:38
Worst game of footy I've seen in a long time.
crowsarethebest
21 May 2006, 13:46
Very Fustrating to watch. If you had the Bowden Brothers in your Dream teams you would be happy. Joel had 34 possesions and 20 marks?
crows98
21 May 2006, 13:53
Very Fustrating to watch. If you had the Bowden Brothers in your Dream teams you would be happy. Joel had 34 possesions and 20 marks?
FFS :mad:
No disrespect intended to anyone who added him to there best players list but it will be a :D:D:D:Ding joke if he get any Brownlow votes for that.
understudy
21 May 2006, 14:06
Adelaide did it against Collingwood and have now copped it back with interest, suck it up :thumbsu: :)
Mad Dog
21 May 2006, 14:10
Adelaide did it against Collingwood and have now copped it back with interest, suck it up :thumbsu: :)
people keep saying this......:rolleyes: .......th edifference against Collingwood was we did it for 7 minutes.....waiting to break the game open and kicked a winning score......................Richmond did it all day............nothing to suck up....;)
crows98
21 May 2006, 14:11
Adelaide did it against Collingwood and have now copped it back with interest, suck it up :thumbsu: :)
Excuse me,
We did it for 5 mins to stop a run on not 90% of the game, a bit of a difference.
BTW, no one is complaining about Richmond’s tactics so how about you suck it up moron.
people keep saying this......:rolleyes: .......th edifference against Collingwood was we did it for 7 minutes.....waiting to break the game open and kicked a winning score......................Richmond did it all day............nothing to suck up....;)
Frickin' sook:rolleyes:
If you say a white lie it is still a lie?
If you steal 20cents as opposed to $5000 is it still called theft?
Oh we only did it for 7 minutes...boo hoo!
Richmond did NOT initiate the tactic. It was practiced and to be used if Adelaide put in place their game plan and that is to peel of forwards and create pressure in the midfield where you guys have the best midfielders to put pressure, turn over the footy and score. And you guys started that tactic late in the 2nd quarter.
Richmond could not have used that tactic had there been no loose players in our defence. Why were there loose players? Because Adelaide chose to implement their game plan and we counteracted.
How about manning up? Simplest solution, the style of play changes.
Blind Fred
21 May 2006, 15:36
One of the problems with banning the backward kick (and making it play on) is that it would actually promote more flooding. That's the problem with making rule changes. One of the main reasons team chip around is that they don't want to kick to a flooded contest. I reckon if you are going to play with the rules it is better to go to the root of the problem.
Truck Rutten
21 May 2006, 15:56
FFS :mad:
No disrespect intended to anyone who added him to there best players list but it will be a :D:D:D:Ding joke if he get any Brownlow votes for that.
I agree with you. AFL website had him listed as Richmond's best :rolleyes:
Mad Dog
21 May 2006, 16:11
Frickin' sook:rolleyes: .
bwwaahhhahahah - that's hilarious coming from a club that spits on it's coach and rips up membership tickets on the boundary line....
Sooks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richmond supporters
If you say a white lie it is still a lie?
If you steal 20cents as opposed to $5000 is it still called theft?
Oh we only did it for 7 minutes...boo hoo!
Richmond did NOT initiate the tactic. It was practiced and to be used if Adelaide put in place their game plan and that is to peel of forwards and create pressure in the midfield where you guys have the best midfielders to put pressure, turn over the footy and score. And you guys started that tactic late in the 2nd quarter.
Richmond could not have used that tactic had there been no loose players in our defence. Why were there loose players? Because Adelaide chose to implement their game plan and we counteracted.
How about manning up? Simplest solution, the style of play changes.
yes we didn't man up - and yes Richmond deserved their win.....I have no problem with that....I have posted congratulatory remarks on the Tiger board.....but I'm sick of hearing people say we invented that style of football.
Stiffy_18
21 May 2006, 16:17
Very Fustrating to watch. If you had the Bowden Brothers in your Dream teams you would be happy. Joel had 34 possesions and 20 marks?
My grandma would get those stats for Richmond yesterday.
Stiffy_18
21 May 2006, 16:19
Adelaide did it against Collingwood and have now copped it back with interest, suck it up :thumbsu: :)
Funny how you come around to troll and never ever make a valid contribution to the discussion on this board.
I think you need to get laid to get rid off that built up frustration that you are experiencing. Give Rexy a call, I am sure he is willing ;)
understudy
21 May 2006, 16:21
Funny how you come around to troll and never ever make a valid contribution to the discussion on this board.
I think you need to get laid to get rid off that built up frustration that you are experiencing. Give Rexy a call, I am sure he is willing ;)
Not at all mate, got it on tap. Just having a bit of fun, we cop plenty so I like to give a bit back now and again. ;)
maccas_no1
21 May 2006, 16:32
There is a very simple way to get rid off this. Just don't allow the kick backward backward of center. If they kick backwards, then its play on. I guarantee you the possesions would have halved from yesterdays game and Bowden brothers wouldn't have suffered of leather poisoning.
Joel Bowden had 15 possesions in the 2nd quarter and I :D:D:D:D you not but 13 of those were in his defensive 50 from tigers kicking backwards to him. Not great from spectators point of view but a great tactic by richmond to deny us the ball.
J Bowden had 34 uncontested marks.
maccas_no1
21 May 2006, 16:33
Funny how you come around to troll and never ever make a valid contribution to the discussion on this board.
I think you need to get laid to get rid off that built up frustration that you are experiencing. Give Rexy a call, I am sure he is willing ;)
$1000 per week to suck understudy's sardine:D
yes we didn't man up - and yes Richmond deserved their win.....I have no problem with that....I have posted congratulatory remarks on the Tiger board.....but I'm sick of hearing people say we invented that style of football.
No you guys didnt invent it, but in the past your team executed it better than most if not all.
It was highlighted against Collingwood because of how effective it was and now thanks to the media it is your game tactic...:confused:
Dunno, 2 man interchange plus a couple of subs on top of that would be good IMO but it'll never happen.
Limiting it to 30 (7 per quarter + 2 more) or even 25 (6 per quarter plus 1 more) would be good though. 30 per game is one every 4 minutes, that should be plenty.
Interestingly that a number of coaches have come out against the 30 figure, but in reality that is about the average number used only a couple of years back.
IMO players like Matthews were so good because they didn't need to hide when tired. How good would Ricciuto be thought of if he played in the same era?
Also IMO the biggest change that has occurred because of the large number of interchanges available is the death of the footballer. Not quite there but well on the way.
Looks like I am not the only one that thinks along these lines.
From
http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/footy/story_page/0,8747,19226597%255E25397,00.html
Anderson today will learn that in Norton's interview with the newspaper, he not only suggested the use of the interchange bench be limited, but the bench be extended to six.
Norton proposed three of the six reserves be used as "substitutes" as in soccer, replacing players who cannot return to the field once interchanged.
The other three reserves could be repeatedly interchanged - but under restrictions.
portentous
24 May 2006, 00:05
You really should get that shirt fixed *PAF. It's not a good look for a man in your "condition" :)
NikkiNoo
24 May 2006, 09:13
One of the problems with banning the backward kick (and making it play on) is that it would actually promote more flooding. That's the problem with making rule changes. One of the main reasons team chip around is that they don't want to kick to a flooded contest. I reckon if you are going to play with the rules it is better to go to the root of the problem.
There is another major problem with bringing in the ban on backwards kicking - as we play the game on an oval, sometimes when to the eye it looks like a kick is backwards it actually technically will be forward. The umpires get enough stick from supporters imagine the problems when this one is brought in!
If they want to ban the backwards kick they will have to change the shape of the ground to a rectangle.
Markthirtytwo
24 May 2006, 09:54
Not at all mate, got it on tap. Just having a bit of fun, we cop plenty so I like to give a bit back now and again. ;)
Who are the WE we are talking about here. Your bio doesn't mention it.
Got any left overs? :eek:
Markthirtytwo
24 May 2006, 09:57
No you guys didnt invent it, but in the past your team executed it better than most if not all.
It was highlighted against Collingwood because of how effective it was and now thanks to the media it is your game tactic...:confused:
Wrong again, it is only one of our tactics. However we didn't implement any others last Saturday because of several factors.