Great Effort

[phreeze77]

Patronising comments interlaced with delusion. What an insightful mix

Did you guys watch the same game?

The umpires Heavily favoured Richmond, the free kick count was skewed one way for most of the night, they ended up 26-20 your way. The umpiring tonight was terrible though.

We kicked 22 Behinds, we had 54 inside 50's to 33 ... That is a pizzling in anyones language. We like the Bulldogs last week were just far too inaccurate infront of goal to put the real scoreboard infront of you.

Richo was great tonight , Delidio was pretty good , didnt rate Tamblings game except the mark and goal was a highlight. I thought Moore was as tight as he can be on Buddy , Buddy having 8 Scoring shots is still a good sign of not being controlled even when teams drop one back to cover his space.

Roughead got on to the next option kick when buddy was doubkle teamed and he could of kicked 8 himself.

You did well to hang in there and get in front at one stage , but the Hawks are a top 2 side this season , no doubt about it, winning ugly or when things arent going your way is a sign of a top side.

 

[tugga]

I was there, all I am saying is he is a good ordinary player, if thats a blinder the fine, but it wasn't. I like watching footy as much as you I guess and there will be some players who our fans will find excuses for because we won't fase the truth. Often you judge your team by comparing what players from the opposition would get a game in your team. Tell me the players in the Richmond team today that would get a game in the Hawthorn team today?

i don';t care who would get a game in your team.
I care who gets a game in my team.
I can handle the Buddy/tambling flack.
Really, I can.
but I what a can't handle is people that come onto another board and say blatantly that Tambling is a good, ordinary player. It's like me coming onto your board and saying Birchall was quiet today or Sewell. It wreaks of ingnorance mate. and judging by your reply (which was pretty decent actually) you're not an ignorant person.
leave the Tambling stuff to us OK? We're pretty happy with who we've got. You're happy with what you've got.

 

[Sausage roll]

We lost.

It is a losers mentality to call this a great effort.

Why does tambling need half time to start trying in a game?

We lost they won( and kicked poorly!)

 

[tugga]

Did you guys watch the same game?

The umpires Heavily favoured Richmond, the free kick count was skewed one way for most of the night, they ended up 26-20 your way. The umpiring tonight was terrible though.

We kicked 22 Behinds, we had 54 inside 50's to 33 ... That is a pizzling in anyones language. We like the Bulldogs last week were just far too inaccurate infront of goal to put the real scoreboard infront of you.

Richo was great tonight , Delidio was pretty good , didnt rate Tamblings game except the mark and goal was a highlight. I thought Moore was as tight as he can be on Buddy , Buddy having 8 Scoring shots is still a good sign of not being controlled even when teams drop one back to cover his space.

Roughead got on to the next option kick when buddy was doubkle teamed and he could of kicked 8 himself.

You did well to hang in there and get in front at one stage , but the Hawks are a top 2 side this season , no doubt about it, winning ugly or when things arent going your way is a sign of a top side.

We'll see.
Tambling was better than Sewell and Buddy combined tonight. Doesn't make him a better player than either, but it's easy when you get into the tit for tat stuff.
hawks have won nothing. beat the wooden spooners by 12 points.
Big deal.

 

[BaliHawk]

i don';t care who would get a game in your team.
I care who gets a game in my team.
I can handle the Buddy/tambling flack.
Really, I can.
but I what a can't handle is people that come onto another board and say blatantly that Tambling is a good, ordinary player. It's like me coming onto your board and saying Birchall was quiet today or Sewell. It wreaks of ingnorance mate. and judging by your reply (which was pretty decent actually) you're not an ignorant person.
leave the Tambling stuff to us OK? We're pretty happy with who we've got. You're happy with what you've got.

Yep fare enough, I normally don't comment on other boards and will keep to my own. I wasn't comparing Tambling with Franklin, thats just a dead debate. Anyway cheers.

 

[jiphoc]

We'll see.
Tambling was better than Sewell and Buddy combined tonight. Doesn't make him a better player than either, but it's easy when you get into the tit for tat stuff.
hawks have won nothing. beat the wooden spooners by 12 points.
Big deal.

For that reason is why Hawks are serious contenders for the flag and Richmond are still a long way off. Sewell, one of Hawks main men was kept well by Tuck I think (correct me if I am wrong there) but regardless of that Hawks still dominated stoppages, which is where Sewell makes his money. Give Tigers 2 or 3 years and then I think we can reassess them then about flag prospects.

 

[tigerdan]

I didn't mind the over the top handball thing. We were dropping one back to sit in front of Buddy which means there was normally a Hawk spare across our half forward line. The worse thing you can do against a good team is to give them a turnover at half back.. they'll chop you to pieces with good disposal. If there's no target and it will just be a turnover, you may as well hang on to it and have a ball up at half back.. I think that's the idea.

I think it is deliberate to handball like that, rather due to the pressure from Hawthorn, as the hawk supporter was saying. We played the same style against the Bulldogs last week. Probably other games too, but I did not watch them.

If we were crap like under spud, the whole game plan would disintergrate with one dud handball. The fact that we were able to play that way for basically the whole match shows to me that it is part of our plan, and that our skills have improved.

The other thing I noticed is the constant attempt to switch play. In the paper it was written up as Hawthorn ruling the coridor and forcing us wide. That may be true, but again, we played that way against the Bullies too.

I can't help but thik it's a deliberate attempt to get clean running posession on the other side of the ground. It works coming out of defence, and along the wing, but hurt us coming in the the forward line as the ball would always come in from the flanks/wing, not the middle of the ground. Hence my comments earlier about how we needed an orthodox CHF on the 50.

Wouldn't surprise if the plan was to run it a bit further and bang it in the the goalsquare for a close mark or crumb. Play no CHF at all and use that spare player in defence. That's how I see it.

 

[tigers_of_old_08]

mate im just putting forward a constructive argument on a football blog.....I dont understand why I should be the one to grow up?

and if you bothered reading my above posts before you blindly typed negative words, you will see I did give credit, and I still am...well done tigers....

Apologies - Ok I took your comments out of context and it appeared you were trolling. Sorry mate.

 

[Stereophonic]

Apologies - Ok I took your comments out of context and it appeared you were trolling. Sorry mate.

no probs dont want any bad 'captain blood' between us

 

[Crumden]

Did you guys watch the same game?

...
We kicked 22 Behinds, we had 54 inside 50's to 33 ... That is a pizzling in anyones language. We like the Bulldogs last week were just far too inaccurate infront of goal to put the real scoreboard infront of you.

...

I don't think it would have made much difference to the result if you had kicked straight. Whenever you kicked a couple of goals we were usually able to respond and get a couple back. It was when you kicked points that we had trouble clearing your zones and the ball kept coming back inside 50. From that point of view the inside 50 difference was a bit artificial, even though Hawthorn were much better than us in the first half.

I thought we played fairly poorly in the first half compared to previous weeks apart from a couple of bursts, but played much better in the second half. In fact, when we got ahead in the third quarter I reckon if we could have held the Hawks out for the last 5 minutes we could have taken the game, but the Hawks had enough polish to get a couple back and take the lead into the last break. The last few minutes of the third quarter were a bit like the last few of the Bulldogs game. We just lacked a bit of experience and composure to keep things under control.

 

[IDGAF]

I thought we played fairly poorly in the first half compared to previous weeks apart from a couple of bursts, but played much better in the second half. In fact, when we got ahead in the third quarter I reckon if we could have held the Hawks out for the last 5 minutes we could have taken the game, but the Hawks had enough polish to get a couple back and take the lead into the last break. The last few minutes of the third quarter were a bit like the last few of the Bulldogs game. We just lacked a bit of experience and composure to keep things under control.

Absolutely Spot on as always Crum ... should really have been 6 goals down minimum at the break ... more good luck than good management that we were as close as we were

I genuinely thought we had the better of the second half ... they play a taxing game the Hawks , one they are friggin good at (dips lid to Clarkson) ... but you could see them beginning to paddle towards the end of the third as we probably were ... the pivitol moment for mine was when we had grabbed the lead late in the third ... streaming forward and Nathan Brown gave away that ridiculous free with that stupid high shot that was nothing more than brain fade ... we had all momentum . Does a lot of great things NB but that was a very costly blue

Went from being a very probable scoring opportunity that would have put us nearly two goals up to them scoring a goal that gave them back the lead ... then they got the clearence from that bounce and scored again straight away.

Last quarter i felt both teams were going up and down a little in the one spot due to fatigue ... they got over the line due to thier twin towers out front ...

We will learn a lot from that game

 

[Bojangles17]

Absolutely Spot on as always Crum ... should really have been 6 goals down minimum at the break ... more good luck than good management that we were as close as we were

I genuinely thought we had the better of the second half ... they play a taxing game the Hawks , one they are friggin good at (dips lid to Clarkson) ... but you could see them beginning to paddle towards the end of the third as we probably were ... the pivitol moment for mine was when we had grabbed the lead late in the third ... streaming forward and Nathan Brown gave away that ridiculous free with that stupid high shot that was nothing more than brain fade ... we had all momentum . Does a lot of great things NB but that was a very costly blue

worse thing was his opponent dropped the bloody mark before he even collected him

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Can someone fill me in please?
Buddy kicks 1.7. and will still be hailed as the best player in thebusiness.
If Richo kicks 1.7, which to my recollection never has, and he's a spud

Round 1, 2003.

Richo kicks 1.6 with 2 out on the full and another one which fell short from inside 50. He had 16 possessions, took 9 marks and gave away three goals to teammates who converted. Oddly, his opponent was Tristen Walker who was credited with haven't soundly beaten Richo on the night, despite only having 3 kicks and taking 2 marks himself.

The fact to all of those sho were there on the evening who were not overwhelmed with the emotion attached to Collingwood apparently unveiling the next great AFL defender, and nothwithstanding the possibility that Tristen Walker himself was especially endowed with a natural talent at standing the mark, was that Richo hammered the youngster. If not for the fact that Richo had to kick with Richo's kicking ability, he'd have probably been amongst the Brownlow votes having presenting himself with 10 very achievable shots at goal.

For instance, Fevola would've probably finished with about 9.3 given the same shooting opportunities, and that household AFL name Tristen Walker would've faded away into obscurity.

Oh wait a sec ... he did anyway.

 

[smasha]

Round 1, 2003.

Richo kicks 1.6 with 2 out on the full and another one which fell short from inside 50. He had 16 possessions, took 9 marks and gave away three goals to teammates who converted. Oddly, his opponent was Tristen Walker who was credited with haven't soundly beaten Richo on the night, despite only having 3 kicks and taking 2 marks himself.

The fact to all of those sho were there on the evening who were not overwhelmed with the emotion attached to Collingwood apparently unveiling the next great AFL defender, and nothwithstanding the possibility that Tristen Walker himself was especially endowed with a natural talent at standing the mark, was that Richo hammered the youngster. If not for the fact that Richo had to kick with Richo's kicking ability, he'd have probably been amongst the Brownlow votes having presenting himself with 10 very achievable shots at goal.

For instance, Fevola would've probably finished with about 9.3 given the same shooting opportunities, and that household AFL name Tristen Walker would've faded away into obscurity.

Oh wait a sec ... he did anyway.

Too true mate.

He still gets a terrible deal with the umps also compared to Fevola,Franklin and Lloyd through the years.

The media carry on and on and on about Franklin but say a few short sentences about Richo.

They hate praising a Richmond player.

You can tell the media hate our guts and get green with envy when we are doing well.

 

[Rookie]

Well done Tiges, good to see the wheel starting to turn...

Hopefully it doesn't turn too far!

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Well done Tiges, good to see the wheel starting to turn...

Hopefully it doesn't turn too far!

She'll be right Rookie. We can always invent another one. We've done plenty of that over the years.