Opinion Danny Frawley questions whether Richmond's forward structure can handle finals pressure

[HTT]

Jack, our lord and saviour Jacob Townsend, and the 4 dwarves + 1 on the bench will be fine.

 

[T4P]

It's a huge problem. We desperately need a way to take more marks inside our F50. I mean, we only rank 2nd in the comp there (after Adelaide). We average just over 12 per game.

There was a game last year, where one side only took 6 marks inside 50 the entire game. It was called the..... ummm .... Grand Final, and the side that took 6 marks I50 won. And their opponents took twice as many.

You play what you have - we don't have a good, fit 2nd tall. (Our good 2nd tall isn't fit, and our fit 2nd tall isn't good).

Inside forward 50 isn't where it's hurting us, it's on the wings in pack mark situations.

Here's how we've gone for contested marks against finals sides this year...

Against Geelong: 0 (11-11)
GWS: -4 (7-11)
Port Adelaide: -11 (9-22)
Sydney: -7 (6-13)
Essendon: -5 (7-12)
GWS: +14 (19-5)
Adelaide: -11 (14-25)
Eagles: -2 (5-7)

This is a weakness, and when we're being put under pressure by other team and kick long to packs, we have a big disadvantage.

Have a look at the contested mark count of last year's Grand Final, the Dogs won that 18-16.

 

[Sir_Loin]

Inside forward 50 isn't where it's hurting us, it's on the wings in pack mark situations.

Here's how we've gone for contested marks against finals sides this year...

Against Geelong: 0 (11-11)
GWS: -4 (7-11)
Port Adelaide: -11 (9-22)
Sydney: -7 (6-13)
Essendon: -5 (7-12)
GWS: +14 (19-5)
Adelaide: -11 (14-25)
Eagles: -2 (5-7)

This is a weakness, and when we're being put under pressure by other team and kick long to packs, we have a big disadvantage.

Have a look at the contested mark count of last year's Grand Final, the Dogs won that 18-16.

Beat GWS, Port, Essendon and the Eagles.

We only struggle when we don't work for each other to create options. Kicking long down the line is not a strength without Griff or Hammer in the side and I've noticed we're doing it less and less and unless we're in attack and kicking to the front of the goal square. On defence we have great intercept marking ability which we're obviously trying to exploit over contested marking on defence. IMO

 

[This Is Anfield]

Who the **** knows.
We have more players playing well on the day and we probably win. We don't and we probably lose.
Like every other game.

 

[This Is Anfield]

Beat GWS, Port, Essendon and the Eagles.

We only struggle when we don't work for each other to create options. Kicking long down the line is not a strength without Griff or Hammer in the side and I've noticed we're doing it less and less and unless we're in attack and kicking to the front of the goal square. On defence we have great intercept marking ability which we're obviously trying to exploit over contested marking on defence. IMO

Exactly, space and more space.
Geelong denied us that at their skinny ground.

 

[T4P]

Beat GWS, Port, Essendon and the Eagles.

We only struggle when we don't work for each other to create options. Kicking long down the line is not a strength without Griff or Hammer in the side and I've noticed we're doing it less and less and unless we're in attack and kicking to the front of the goal square. On defence we have great intercept marking ability which we're obviously trying to exploit over contested marking on defence. IMO

That Port game stands out for me, Port were dominating the contested marks on the wing in the first half, we couldn't get it past them.

It needs to be an option, in a high-pressure situation without the kick down the line we handball it to each other until we lose it - see last quarter v Geelong.

 

[T4P]

We have won the contested mark count in 7 games this year.

Obviously we've still done well, but you can't deny that it's a weakness of ours. We won't lose games by that alone, but in the high pressure of finals, it could be exposed.

 

[Sir_Loin]

That Port game stands out for me, Port were dominating the contested marks on the wing in the first half, we couldn't get it past them.

It needs to be an option, in a high-pressure situation without the kick down the line we handball it to each other until we lose it - see last quarter v Geelong.

I agree if we have the players. We don't so we've had to change to way we play. I've seen us do it out of habit especially early in the year but now our forward half pressure and defensive set up means the pill doesn't come out as clean from forward 50. It's going to be interesting to see how this style stands up against the traditional view of needing big contested marking in finals

 

[T4P]

I agree if we have the players. We don't so we've had to change to way we play. I've seen us do it out of habit especially early in the year but now our forward half pressure and defensive set up means the pill doesn't come out as clean from forward 50. It's going to be interesting to see how this style stands up against the traditional view of needing big contested marking in finals

In games where we have struggled our forward pressure hasn't been an issue because the game gets played in our back half. Our solution has been to run and handball, but if the opposition anticipates that and brings the pressure it won't work.

 

[Wackelpudding]

Remember Rd 23 2014, the Swans were killing us and we were trying to hang on? We couldn't escape their forward half until Griffo took a massive mark with about a minute to go - which meant we could set up and hold onto possesion. That's what we will miss in a close game. Hopefully we can make up for it in other areas, but it's a big risk.

 

[cannot]

Remember Rd 23 2014, the Swans were killing us and we were trying to hang on? We couldn't escape their forward half until Griffo took a massive mark with about a minute to go - which meant we could set up and hold onto possesion. That's what we will miss in a close game. Hopefully we can make up for it in other areas, but it's a big risk.

i remember

griffo looked like wayne carey in a helmet in the 2s ...

 

[Grrr]

I think we are the most unpredictable to set up against. We attack from many angles. I don't think the earlier game against Adelaide is an indication of what we are like now, I think we have improved and understand our game plan a lot better. However we are still in need of a second tall, but it isn't going to happen this year. Callum Moore is the ideal type, whether he improves enough time will tell, but I'm not in the Casboult camp because he is one dimensional (although better than an injury prone Griffiths and Hampson as a forward).

 

[Rayzorwire]

Same questions were asked about the Dogs last finals series, their chances downgraded because of that perceived weakness.

A contested mark is a contested mark, regardless of the size of the players involved. We've got a bunch of mid-size players who are capable overhead in the forward half.

As for lacking get-out targets who can hold territory gained, I'm hoping the way we've managed Nank in the 2nd half of the year has him nice and fresh for the finals. In his best games this year, he's been able to cover us to a fair degree around the ground. Other than that, we've experimented with using all our KPD's further up the ground in recent weeks, Jack's used to the part he needs to play, I think it will only be an issue if our midfield gets beaten and our run and carry dries up.

An additional tall ain't gonna fix that problem and it's highly unlikely to ameliorate it enough to make significant difference.

 

[Rimmer]

His is just another opinion.

Like all the other experts last year he gave the dogs no chance of getting past West Coast yet alone winning the flag.

He is like me, neither of us have a clue. He just has a bigger soap box ... ignore him.