Remove this Banner Ad

Dimmas dissection

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

I'm hesitant to make this comment as i feel there has been enough Dimma bashing and we should just wait and see what unfolds in the next 6-10 games, but something I picked up on the latest video annoyed me a little - so i can't help comment. Well, 2 things actually.

1. I liked the question about why are we kicking the ball wide to the pockets in our forward line where chances of conversion are much lower. Dimma acknowledged that and then, to my interpretation, proceeded to 'answer' the question with some stats about how bad we were from directly in front and some stat about 1 out of 10 from 30m-50m. It annoyed me because these 2 things are unrelated in my mind. The lack of conversion from in front is a skill/execution error, however the going wide is a game plan strategy/'error'. I see one on the players (the execution) and one on the coaching staff (where the shots are taken from).

I've heard previously that the going wide enables us to force a stoppage if a mark is not taken or whatever. This was not discussed at all on this video but that logic annoys me too (I'm so testy at the moment) as i see it as too defensive a strategy and would rather see risks taken in getting the ball more squarely to the goals.

2. I also thought the point about too many easy goals conceded with the ball going over the back was given a pretty thin answer. A few easy example goals were shown where a turnover on, or about, our 50m line was rushed back and easy goal ensued. Dimma seemed to be suggesting that if the turnover didn't happen the goal doesn't happen. My point, if we push up that many players into the forward half and ball movement is so slow that the opposition do too, we should expect turnovers and contests in our forward line. Let's not suggest 'we usually win those' - with that many players in the area some we are not going to wn. There will be loose and contested balls that they win back. We need better contingency plans if/when we don't win those types of contests. BTW: I've never been the biggest fan of Chaplin but he was missed IMO on Saturday in the ball getting over the back scenario.

Sorry Dimma, you're under the pump no doubt, but let's be realistic in our analysis and risk planning.
 
SumTingWong said:
I'll sum up this one for you:
we can't run
we can't kick
we don't chase
we don't know where to stand
we constantly fumble the ball
we make bad decisions
Click to expand...
You forgot to mention we know the problem's and well fix them:)
 
Madtiger2006 said:
How do you send in a question? Just an email to his email address?
Click to expand...

I don't know Tiger, but I'd suggest that RFC Official would know.

But as Terra says above, I don't think you'll get an actual answer when you send in a question. You get some analysis that is vaguely in the direction of the question.

BTW, I actually like Dimma's Dissection and get something out of it.
 
RunningBounce said:
I don't know Tiger, but I'd suggest that RFC Official would know.

But as Terra says above, I don't think you'll get an actual answer when you send in a question. You get some analysis that is vaguely in the direction of the question.

BTW, I actually like Dimma's Dissection and get something out of it.
Click to expand...

It'll be good just to advise him about some obvious mistakes we could easily remove from our games to make us a better side though
 
RunningBounce said:
I don't know Tiger, but I'd suggest that RFC Official would know.

But as Terra says above, I don't think you'll get an actual answer when you send in a question. You get some analysis that is vaguely in the direction of the question.

BTW, I actually like Dimma's Dissection and get something out of it.
Click to expand...

Me too. I think it is a great initiative from the club and I really enjoy some of the analysis and insights - brings us closer the the coaches and players. I also have sympathy for the club and Dimma if the losses mount and they are under obligation to keep it going. It can't be easy.
 
RunningBounce said:
I don't know Tiger, but I'd suggest that RFC Official would know.

But as Terra says above, I don't think you'll get an actual answer when you send in a question. You get some analysis that is vaguely in the direction of the question.

BTW, I actually like Dimma's Dissection and get something out of it.
Click to expand...

Tuesday's with terry
 
TerraTiger said:
The lack of conversion from in front is a skill/execution error, however the going wide is a game plan strategy/'error'. I see one on the players (the execution) and one on the coaching staff (where the shots are taken from).
Click to expand...
Lack of conversion from in front could be a skill/execution error but I have seen enough of this and other things from this team for many years now which suggests to me it is more of a mental problem - pressure of needing to kick the goal reduces too many of our so called best 22 and even our supposed A graders to jelly.
Other evidence of this is our propensity to play ultra safe in almost all cases when the opposition pour on the pressure - lack of testies and mental strength to trust our skills and game plan and go for the quick direct ball movement.... fear of ****ing it up syndrome I call it.

Dunno what the solution is - multiple lobotomies perhaps???
 

Remove this Banner Ad

TerraTiger said:
I'm hesitant to make this comment as i feel there has been enough Dimma bashing and we should just wait and see what unfolds in the next 6-10 games, but something I picked up on the latest video annoyed me a little - so i can't help comment. Well, 2 things actually.

1. I liked the question about why are we kicking the ball wide to the pockets in our forward line where chances of conversion are much lower. Dimma acknowledged that and then, to my interpretation, proceeded to 'answer' the question with some stats about how bad we were from directly in front and some stat about 1 out of 10 from 30m-50m. It annoyed me because these 2 things are unrelated in my mind. The lack of conversion from in front is a skill/execution error, however the going wide is a game plan strategy/'error'. I see one on the players (the execution) and one on the coaching staff (where the shots are taken from).

I've heard previously that the going wide enables us to force a stoppage if a mark is not taken or whatever. This was not discussed at all on this video but that logic annoys me too (I'm so testy at the moment) as i see it as too defensive a strategy and would rather see risks taken in getting the ball more squarely to the goals.

2. I also thought the point about too many easy goals conceded with the ball going over the back was given a pretty thin answer. A few easy example goals were shown where a turnover on, or about, our 50m line was rushed back and easy goal ensued. Dimma seemed to be suggesting that if the turnover didn't happen the goal doesn't happen. My point, if we push up that many players into the forward half and ball movement is so slow that the opposition do too, we should expect turnovers and contests in our forward line. Let's not suggest 'we usually win those' - with that many players in the area some we are not going to wn. There will be loose and contested balls that they win back. We need better contingency plans if/when we don't win those types of contests. BTW: I've never been the biggest fan of Chaplin but he was missed IMO on Saturday in the ball getting over the back scenario.

Sorry Dimma, you're under the pump no doubt, but let's be realistic in our analysis and risk planning.
Click to expand...
I took the answer about inside 50 entries as, yes we did go wide however we still had a lot in the centre corridor we missed(something like 3.8approx) which would indicate that we did actually kick to these spots but missed them. I would also add from the city end member area, the dees flood this area, which causes the players to kick wide to more open space. At this point it is the only area to lead to.
 
TerraTiger said:
Me too. I think it is a great initiative from the club and I really enjoy some of the analysis and insights - brings us closer the the coaches and players. I also have sympathy for the club and Dimma if the losses mount and they are under obligation to keep it going. It can't be easy.
Click to expand...

Must be god awful to front up and go through the motions, knowing whatever you say, a lot of supporters are only ever gunna hear more reasons to dump chook poo on your yard.

I know a few other clubs do this "message from the coach" thing for their members, but mostly, it's a simple repeat of what was said in the press conference, so I appreciate a bit more analysis and the insight it gives into Hardwick's thinking.
 
theflea said:
I would also add from the city end member area, the dees flood this area, which causes the players to kick wide to more open space. At this point it is the only area to lead to.
Click to expand...

Flooding aside, I reckon all AFL teams avoid the kick to the top of the square, and have done for years. Maybe because it's easy to rush a behind from that kick?

I reckon the long bomb to a contest almost always goes 10m to 15m in front of the point post, for every team. Of course, the better teams don't have to resort to the long bomb to a contest often.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

RunningBounce said:
Flooding aside, I reckon all AFL teams avoid the kick to the top of the square, and have done for years. Maybe because it's easy to rush a behind from that kick?

I reckon the long bomb to a contest almost always goes 10m to 15m in front of the point post, for every team. Of course, the better teams don't have to resort to the long bomb to a contest often.
Click to expand...

Teams also intentionally defend that way. They clog up the space at the top of the square, forcing players to lead wide. The other option left open is for players to lead up, but shallow i50 entries leave teams super vulnerable on the counter attack, and so this option is generally avoided.
 
I like Dimma's vivisection.

Interesting listening to Dermot the other day on some strategies the doggies are using at the moment to great success. One of them would assist with the issue that has been brought up in this thread about sides scoring quickly against us from their full back position when they kick out long and "over the top".
Dogs counter this by setting up all players in a grid formation 50m-70m from goal to guard the long kick or fast run out of defense.
 
RunningBounce said:
Flooding aside, I reckon all AFL teams avoid the kick to the top of the square, and have done for years. Maybe because it's easy to rush a behind from that kick?

I reckon the long bomb to a contest almost always goes 10m to 15m in front of the point post, for every team. Of course, the better teams don't have to resort to the long bomb to a contest often.
Click to expand...

FWIW, from what I have come to understand, we head long into pockets when a short aint available, purely to be able to defend the spill with the aid of the boundary line, which then relies on our goals from stoppages stat.
 
A question is asked on Twitter every Monday, so you can reply to that, or if you're not on there, feel free to email the club on info@richmondfc.com.au with your question. Our content guys go through the questions and work with Dimma and the footy department to pull out the vision that goes with the explanation.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom