Season 2017 - The weirdest and worst ever?

[Tiger2709]

I wonder how everyone's going to explain 2018 when we go back to back. Another weak/transition year?

Bring on a soft draw and poor opposition if thats all the other 17 clubs can bring to the show so be it, I'll happily sit back and watch the Tiges grab a few more "easy" flags.

We dominated the finals both in attack and defence, turned skilled footballers into shank artists with our gut running pressure, along with some sublime skills from our bevy of A graders, best football Ive seen in a long time.

Long may we rule.

 

[Tiger2709]

If the 2017 AFL Season was a movie, it would be Battlefield Earth.

Everything about this season was bad, not a single positive.

Lets be honest, you're a Collinwood supporter, your club continues its plummet from the top and then you find Eddie has just resigned a new more relaxed Bucks, in the hope of copying Richmond's glorius victory.
I guess I can see why you feel this way, for me it was the best season in a long time, close hard fought , top 8 went to the wire, with the best team, Richmond, eventually winning the ultimate prize.

 

[Topkent]

Not for me.

How old are you? Because that is not how footy was supposed to be played. It's a shadow of the entertaining sport I watched as a kid.

 

[Topkent]

Richmond's good players have always been rated a level below the competition's best because they had no finals achievements to speak of. Now that they're credentialled, the focus has been shifted to weak competition/poor spectacle.

I'm loving that we're the new benchmark and that Collingwood is already blatantly copying our blueprint.

I don't buy into the weak competition aspect, it's just that we no longer have super teams with 15 AA level players on them which is good for the competition. I thought anyone could beat anyone which made it the most exciting seasons for a long time in terms of results. The style of footy is what is terrible though

 

[Ron The Bear]

I don't buy into the weak competition aspect, it's just that we no longer have super teams with 15 AA level players on them which is good for the competition. I thought anyone could beat anyone which made it the most exciting seasons for a long time in terms of results. The style of footy is what is terrible though

The spectacle's been going downhill for about a dozen years. 2017 started off brighter; average score of 94.4 through seven rounds was the second-highest in that period before defence again came to the fore.

There's a quote from the Konrad Marshall book on Richmond's season where during the Melbourne game, Hardwick implores the team to "Deny, deny, deny". It isn't new but it's a departure from footy's unscientific halcyon days when games were won by the team with the best weapons. Richmond have one star forward and one star mid; they couldn't succeed through freewheeling.

Don't think we'll see a significant upturn until the percentage of stars in the competition increases, and expansion has conspired against that. But I don't think 2017 was a year of marked decline, either.

If you love high-scoring football, pray for an Adelaide premiership. And pray hard.

 

[UnitedWarrior93]

The H&A season was good, but geez the finals series was pure s**t. All games bar one were pretty much done early on, and even if you think about the Richmond v Geelong final, that was a putrid standard of footy with the cats hanging on until the flood gates opened.

 

[richoatthedisco]

The H&A season was good, but geez the finals series was pure s**t. All games bar one were pretty much done early on, and even if you think about the Richmond v Geelong final, that was a putrid standard of footy with the cats hanging on until the flood gates opened.

Horseshit. Richmond's standard of footy was fantastic, hence it dominated the finals like no team in almost two decades. Won contested ball, moved it quickly, applied relentless pressure and kicked great goals.

The Tigers were deserving premiers no doubt at all about that, but they won it with 1 forward and 5 negative forwards. AFL is already a s**t product of the exciting 90s and early 00s and the bulldogs and tigers brand of football promotes players who aren't necessarily good footballers but are great at pressure.
Richmond hammered another nail into the coffin of the KPP player forward of Centre and that's a shame.
You are better off with a couple mid size forwards who can jump than an actual key forward now

I would love to see rotations completely cut down so that you can't just win a game of footy based on how much you tackle because that's all that footy is in 2017. If you restrict the ability of blokes to run all over the field all game you'll start seeing more 1 on 1 contests which will in turn promote more natural footballers.

Imagine next year with little rotations Rance takes the mark in defence, handballs off to Houli who kicks to Martin 1 on 1 on the wing who throws his opponent out of the way, takes the mark wheels around and has Riewoldt leading out of the goal square with space to move.
Now it's Rance wins it on the wing because everyone is up so high, he bombs it into the 50 where 7 people contest it the ball hits the ground and tigers tackle until a turn over is had after 4 minutes and a goal is snapped. Boring.

I know what you're saying and as an old key forward myself I agree to a degree. I would love to see rotations cut and forwards given more of a chance one-out. Richmond would love to be able to give Riewoldt, Martin, Rioli, Caddy, Cotchin and Castagna one-out opportunities inside 50.

Pressure/tackling are the new black, but that's not all it takes. Richmond dominated contested possession this September, handled the ball cleaner, moved the ball quicker than it opponents. Richmond had more marks inside 50 and a stack more running bounces than its opponents. Richmond owned the corridor, like the best teams always do. (Watch our finals again and note how much more often than our opponents we brought the ball through the centre of the ground. This was partly our defensive shape denying them the cut-back inside, and partly the skill and vision of our players, led by Shane Edwards, to beat the opposition's attempts to do likewise.)

I disagree it's boring (of course I do). I can't see how you can argue it's more boring than Sydney and West Coast winning finals with scores in the 50s 11-12 years ago.

Geelong didn't play old-school contest footy, they played run-in-waves handball. Hawthorn played uncontested mark and kick.

There's this myth that Geelong and Hawthorn were champion teams of champions. Have a look at the 2007 grand final line-ups. That Port Adelaide side is the worst team to play in a grand final I've ever seen:

B: 36 Michael Pettigrew 28 Toby Thurstans 9 Jacob Surjan
HB: 25 Domenic Cassisi 30 Troy Chaplin 7 Peter Burgoyne
C: 3 Steven Salopek 18 Kane Cornes 15 David Rodan
HF: 4 Daniel Motlop 1 Warren Tredrea (c) 16 Danyle Pearce
F: 5 Brendon Lade 39 Justin Westhoff 33 Brett Ebert
Foll: 20 Dean Brogan 35 Chad Cornes 8 Shaun Burgoyne
Int: 10 Travis Boak 23 Brad Symes 44 Tom Logan
2 Darryl Wakelin

2017 Melbourne, who didn't even make the finals, would flog that Port side.

Even the mighty Geelong had s**t trucks like Nathan Ablett and Josh Hunt, and bog-ordinary players like Harley (captain of this great team, wouldn't get a game for Richmond 2017), Wojcinski, Mooney, Stokes, Byrnes, King and Rooke.

 

[Ricky Vaughn]

The H&A season was good, but geez the finals series was pure s**t. All games bar one were pretty much done early on, and even if you think about the Richmond v Geelong final, that was a putrid standard of footy with the cats hanging on until the flood gates opened.

I've said this a few times, but every single winner wants to take complete credit for how their opponent played on the day, "They played as well as we allowed them too."

Geelong vs Richmond
Geelong vs Sydney
GWS vs West Coast
Adelaide vs Geelong
Adelaide vs Richmond

I'd argue in those 5 games, the losers played uncharacteristically terrible, especially the first 2 mentioned.

That isn't taking away credit from the winners of those games, in all those games they delivered high standard pressure and executed their skills well.
It was a strange finals series.

 

[richoatthedisco]

I've said this a few times, but every single winner wants to take complete credit for how their opponent played on the day, "They played as well as we allowed them too."

Geelong vs Richmond
Geelong vs Sydney
GWS vs West Coast
Adelaide vs Geelong
Adelaide vs Richmond

I'd argue in those 5 games, the losers played uncharacteristically terrible, especially the first 2 mentioned.

That isn't taking away credit from the winners of those games, in all those games they delivered high standard pressure and executed their skills well.
It was a strange finals series.

I'd argue Richmond flogged Geelong and Adelaide because Richmond is a better side. I've said this a few times, but every single loser wants to deny their opponent credit, "They didn't flog us, we played s**t."

 

[Ricky Vaughn]

I'd argue Richmond flogged Geelong and Adelaide because Richmond is a better side. I've said this a few times, but every single loser wants to deny their opponent credit, "They didn't flog us, we played s**t."

I didn't say Richmond weren't a better side, I also said this...

That isn't taking away credit from the winners of those games, in all those games they delivered high standard pressure and executed their skills well.

It really shouldn't matter to you though. Whether you think Richmond were an all conquering juggernaut who would have beaten any Premiership side in history, or the weakest Premier since Fitzroy won it from last and just got exceedingly lucky, the outcome doesn't change.

 

[woota]

If the 2017 AFL Season was a movie, it would be Battlefield Earth.

Everything about this season was bad, not a single positive.

Yeah bad for you because your useless club finished near the bottom HAHAHAHA

also it was one of the best seasons I've ever watched because of Martins performance being the first player ever to win every award in the league bar the coleman medal.

 

[richoatthedisco]

I didn't say Richmond weren't a better side, I also said this...



It really shouldn't matter to you though. Whether you think Richmond were an all conquering juggernaut who would have beaten any Premiership side in history, or the weakest Premier since Fitzroy won it from last and just got exceedingly lucky, the outcome doesn't change.

First of all, you can't say "I'd argue in those 5 games, the losers played uncharacteristically terrible" and then claim you're not taking away credit from the winners of those games. That is exactly what you're doing. Simply stating you're not doesn't change that.

Secondly, why should I not partake in a discussion about the relative strength of the season/premiership team, just because I'm enjoying my club's dominant premiership performance? I might as well say to you, you shouldn't worry about who won the flag or why, since your team was patently not good enough to do so.

 

[schmuttt]

Richmond's good players have always been rated a level below the competition's best because they had no finals achievements to speak of. Now that they're credentialled, the focus has been shifted to weak competition/poor spectacle.

I'm loving that we're the new benchmark and that Collingwood is already blatantly copying our blueprint.

Eh, I think most people with a clue have always rated Richmond’s top 4 players highly, you’d struggle to find a better 4 at another club (I posted a few times in 2016 about how Cotchin was a very underrated player but lacked a bit as a leader, he proved me wrong on the leadership bit).

I was very critical of the seemingly large amount of list cloggers you played in the last few years but in 2017 they either didn’t get a game or became handy role players so credit to Richmond.

The finals series WAS garbage to watch but you can’t pin it on Richmond, there were still 4 of 5 shitty finals that they didn’t play in. I will however be interested to see if the tigers repeat their high scoring September throughout all of 2018 or they go back to their much lower scoring that we saw in the 2017 H&A (Before the Freo game they were the 2nd lowest scoring top 4 side of the modern era.

 

[Ron The Bear]

The finals series WAS garbage to watch but you can’t pin it on Richmond, there were still 4 of 5 shitty finals that they didn’t play in. I will however be interested to see if the tigers repeat their high scoring September throughout all of 2018 or they go back to their much lower scoring that we saw in the 2017 H&A (Before the Freo game they were the 2nd lowest scoring top 4 side of the modern era.

I have us third-lowest after 2015 Freo & 2010 St.Kilda, but point taken. Some allowance should be made for the several games played in wet conditions.

Richmond continued to make adjustments to the mix; they're the only premiership team to introduce three new players after Round 16. I'd like to think the last five rounds are more in line with the way we want to play than e.g. Rounds 10-15. Ideally you're applying pressure to the opposition and hitting the scoreboard, but the Sydney game showed that it's fraught with risk, which coaches hate.

 

[UnitedWarrior93]

Horseshit. Richmond's standard of footy was fantastic, hence it dominated the finals like no team in almost two decades. Won contested ball, moved it quickly, applied relentless pressure and kicked great goals.


I know what you're saying and as an old key forward myself I agree to a degree. I would love to see rotations cut and forwards given more of a chance one-out. Richmond would love to be able to give Riewoldt, Martin, Rioli, Caddy, Cotchin and Castagna one-out opportunities inside 50.

Pressure/tackling are the new black, but that's not all it takes. Richmond dominated contested possession this September, handled the ball cleaner, moved the ball quicker than it opponents. Richmond had more marks inside 50 and a stack more running bounces than its opponents. Richmond owned the corridor, like the best teams always do. (Watch our finals again and note how much more often than our opponents we brought the ball through the centre of the ground. This was partly our defensive shape denying them the cut-back inside, and partly the skill and vision of our players, led by Shane Edwards, to beat the opposition's attempts to do likewise.)

I disagree it's boring (of course I do). I can't see how you can argue it's more boring than Sydney and West Coast winning finals with scores in the 50s 11-12 years ago.

Geelong didn't play old-school contest footy, they played run-in-waves handball. Hawthorn played uncontested mark and kick.

There's this myth that Geelong and Hawthorn were champion teams of champions. Have a look at the 2007 grand final line-ups. That Port Adelaide side is the worst team to play in a grand final I've ever seen:

B: 36 Michael Pettigrew 28 Toby Thurstans 9 Jacob Surjan
HB: 25 Domenic Cassisi 30 Troy Chaplin 7 Peter Burgoyne
C: 3 Steven Salopek 18 Kane Cornes 15 David Rodan
HF: 4 Daniel Motlop 1 Warren Tredrea (c) 16 Danyle Pearce
F: 5 Brendon Lade 39 Justin Westhoff 33 Brett Ebert
Foll: 20 Dean Brogan 35 Chad Cornes 8 Shaun Burgoyne
Int: 10 Travis Boak 23 Brad Symes 44 Tom Logan
2 Darryl Wakelin

2017 Melbourne, who didn't even make the finals, would flog that Port side.

Even the mighty Geelong had s**t trucks like Nathan Ablett and Josh Hunt, and bog-ordinary players like Harley (captain of this great team, wouldn't get a game for Richmond 2017), Wojcinski, Mooney, Stokes, Byrnes, King and Rooke.

Stokes, Wojo, Mooney and Rooke s**t trucks? bahahahaha, I’ll give you king and Byrnes, but even Byrnes was decent at his best.

 

[Ricky Vaughn]

First of all, you can't say "I'd argue in those 5 games, the losers played uncharacteristically terrible" and then claim you're not taking away credit from the winners of those games. That is exactly what you're doing. Simply stating you're not doesn't change that.

Secondly, why should I not partake in a discussion about the relative strength of the season/premiership team, just because I'm enjoying my club's dominant premiership performance? I might as well say to you, you shouldn't worry about who won the flag or why, since your team was patently not good enough to do so.

I'm not taking any credit away from the winners, I'm attributing them the level of credit I feel they deserve for their opponents performance on the day. While in all cases it was substantial, it wasn't total.

If that's a real question, you could not take part because your level of bias doesn't allow you to see it objectively.
But this is Bigfooty, being blinded by bias had never stopped anybody from entering an argument.

 

[woota]

I'm not taking any credit away from the winners, I'm attributing them the level of credit I feel they deserve for their opponents performance on the day. While in all cases it was substantial, it wasn't total.

If that's a real question, you could not take part because your level of bias doesn't allow you to see it objectively.
But this is Bigfooty, being blinded by bias had never stopped anybody from entering an argument.

Yep, richmond finished top 4 and won 3 out of 3 finals by very convincing margins but it wasn't because they were good, it was because all the other teams were bad. ROFLCOPTER

 

[Ricky Vaughn]

Yep, richmond finished top 4 and won 3 out of 3 finals by very convincing margins but it wasn't because they were good, it was because all the other teams were bad. ROFLCOPTER

Interesting point.
I disagree with it, but can you expand on it?

 

[woota]

Interesting point.
I disagree with it, but can you expand on it?

Yeah, richmond are an awful team. They only won the flag through sheer luck, because all the other teams were just having an off day when richmond played them.

 

[richoatthedisco]

Stokes, Wojo, Mooney and Rooke s**t trucks? bahahahaha, I’ll give you king and Byrnes, but even Byrnes was decent at his best.

No, I said Nablett and Hunt were s**t trucks, the others ordinary. As in average.

I'm not taking any credit away from the winners, I'm attributing them the level of credit I feel they deserve for their opponents performance on the day. While in all cases it was substantial, it wasn't total.

If that's a real question, you could not take part because your level of bias doesn't allow you to see it objectively.
But this is Bigfooty, being blinded by bias had never stopped anybody from entering an argument.

Riiiiight. I'm biased, you're not.

 

[jackenny]

Grigg is about equal to Lewis (Lewis the better kick, Grigg the better runner). Ditto Kelly. Cotchin is streets ahead of all of them.

B: Scarlett Rance Enright
HB: Hodge (c) Taylor Burgoyne
C: Selwood Martin Cotchin (v)
HF:Johnson Roughead Franklin
F: Bartel Riewoldt C.Rioli
R: Ottens Ablett Mitchell
I: Chapman Lewis Corey Edwards

Shane Edwards? Really?

You'd put Shane Edwards ahead of players like Darren Milburn or Grant Birchall?

I'd choose Steven Motlop or Paul Puopolo ahead of Shane Edwards...

 

[Ricky Vaughn]

No, I said Nablett and Hunt were s**t trucks, the others ordinary. As in average.


Riiiiight. I'm biased, you're not.

What am I being biased about?

Sydney had a train wreck performance against us in the semi, and it wasn't just down to our brilliant pressure.
Geelong were horrible against Richmond, alot of it down to Richmond pressure, but missing uncontested targets, basic skill errors, horrible decision making and dropping uncontested marks, that's on Geelong.

The other game you've taken issue with was the Grand Final, I have no dog in that fight. Why would I be biased towards Adelaide?

Edit* Sorry, I should have just used this to show how horrible your bias is.

Grigg is about equal to Lewis

 

[Ricky Vaughn]

Yeah, richmond are an awful team. They only won the flag through sheer luck, because all the other teams were just having an off day when richmond played them.

Seems a bit harsh on the Tigs I reckon.
They were a very good side.

 

[woota]

Seems a bit harsh on the Tigs I reckon.
They were a very good side.

Nah, richmond are the right wooden spooners of 2017. It was sheer luck that they made the top 4. And then won the flag. It was just because other teams had injuries, and didn't play their best on the day, and the wind wasn't blowing in the right direction.

 

[Ricky Vaughn]

Nah, richmond are the right wooden spooners of 2017. It was sheer luck that they made the top 4. And then won the flag. It was just because other teams had injuries, and didn't play their best on the day, and the wind wasn't blowing in the right direction.

Interesting take on the wind direction, I hadn't factored that in.