Review Hey Dimma, dissect this:

[Heisenberg_]

Probably because Chris Scott has about 30 players that could legitimately be in his best 22, so the inference would therefore be completely different.

This information is free but donations welcome.


Paypal accepted.

That's a weak cop out, sure we don't have quite the same depth as Geelong which pretty much nobody does, you make it out like we have zero depth at all.
Fact is that we have a number of players vying for spots in the 22, we wouldn't be a very good shot at a spot in the finals if we didn't have such competition for spots.

 

[Equus]

I thought I'd tried that, Equus, nothing changed.

You might've tried it a while ago when the old mods were around but it's different now. We are pretty quick to respond nowadays.

You deleted one of my posts and edited the other, so surely you read the post which caused my reaction, which did contain 'baiting and trolling' and no content, then decided to leave it there. So I'm not sure how you could claim to have missed it.

I edited the other because another subsequent post after that post was personally attacking you. So I edited it just so that there may not be another person picking points on your grammar and spelling.

Then people can riff all over you to their hearts' content and you can't defend yourself.

It's not really a solution, IMO, only further exacerbating a problem.

For all posters who dislike Rayzorwire's opinion please put him on ignore, nobody is asking you to read them. Rayzorwire, for all posters who you think contribute nothing to Bigfooty, put them on ignore. That'll do.

Anyway, I'll leave it there, thanks for responding.

I'll leave it at that.

I hope you can all respect each other opinions without turning feral.

 

[Harmichael]

That's a weak cop out, sure we don't have quite the same depth as Geelong which pretty much nobody does, you make it out like we have zero depth at all.
Fact is that we have a number of players vying for spots in the 22, we wouldn't be a very good shot at a spot in the finals if we didn't have such competition for spots.

Where did I say we have "zero depth"? Having a few blokes "vying for spots" and having about 30 blokes who would be a walk up start at every virtually other club and therefore about 8-10 blokes probably only missing out on the proverbial flip of a coin or due to incumbency are completely different levels of depth -as you've just pretty much said yourself, so I don't know why you'd then come to such a black & white conclusion that I somehow asserted there's only Geelong depth & zero depth and nothing in between.

Scott most likely doesn't know his best 22 because he's spoilt for choice and could probably be equally as successful with a number of combinations. It's not like he's saying "I still don't know who can do the job yet" which I assume was the criticism of Hardwick for saying it. I wasn't really bagging Hardwick anyway and probably should've said "could" instead of "would" as I was merely suggesting that two coaches at different clubs in different circumstances saying the same thing isn't necessarily concrete proof of any correalation or that both are either right or wrong.

 

[Wally Matera]

Hi Rayzorwire.

If you feel that the post above my initial post is baiting you, then press report and we will deal with it. We do not go through each and every post with a fine tooth comb to detect any hints of trolling or baiting thus we rely on the community to report posts which we have missed.

If you feel that there is favoritism on this board, feel free to PM me and the other Richmond mods about it and we can discuss it from there. However, I have a solution for you that will remedy some of your concerns. If you find that there are posters who habitually post "nothing" posts then I suggest that you put those posters on "Ignore". Once people are put on in "Ignore" you do not see any of their posts on Bigfooty. To do this -

1. Click on poster's avatar
2. A grey box will appear
3. Click on "Ignore"

I hope this suggestions help.

The mods here try our best to make the Richmond Board a whole better place so if you got any more suggestions then feel in raising it with us via PM.

Eq.

Why has this board become so overly moderated? I'm heavily involved in the debate, but never once have l felt someone trolling for the sake of it, nor have l felt my posts have been anything other than adding discussion.

Getting a bit nancy on this board, is what made this board attractive to us and other supporters. If you want to turn it to a childrens playground, where we feel patronised by someone coming over the top and saying 'play ball, not the man'... for god sake. Really?!?!

This is not going the man... but a reality check that nothing has been offensive, so play on. Who cares if someone throws a few fisty cuffs... its part of the amusement.

 

[Equus]

Why has this board become so overly moderated? I'm heavily involved in the debate, but never once have l felt someone trolling for the sake of it, nor have l felt my posts have been anything other than adding discussion.

Getting a bit nancy on this board, is what made this board attractive to us and other supporters. If you want to turn it to a childrens playground, where we feel patronised by someone coming over the top and saying 'play ball, not the man'... for god sake. Really?!?!

This is not going the man... but a reality check that nothing has been offensive, so play on. Who cares if someone throws a few fisty cuffs... its part of the amusement.

Hi Wally.

Over-moderation is Carlton board and Melbourne board. This board is far more liberal and less moderated than you know it. However, there are times where moderators have to step in and nip things in the bud. You are heavily involved in this debate as it is your thread HOWEVER there was trolling and baiting in this thread in the last few days which had nothing to do with your original post whatsoever and added very little to the discussion of the thread.

My role is to keep things on topic Wally - hence the reason why I tell people to "Play ball, not the man". If you attack the argument, you're progressing and discussing the topic in hand. However, if you attack the poster because of what his opinions are then I am basically turning this place into a children's playground with petty name-calling and goading.

I know you are not going for the man, I just want to make it clear that the last few days, posters in this thread had basically derailed this thread and turned it to shit and I do not have any intention of seeing this quality thread turn to shit because a few posters are throwing fisty-cuffs.

If you feel that I have not addressed this issue and you want further clarification, send me a PM and I will speak to you privately.

Anticipating Dissect This Pt IU.

 

[Wally Matera]

Bump. Where are you all now on Hardwick?

You can post your pissant apologies here:

 

[_RT_]

Bump. Where are you all now on Hardwick?

You can post your pissant apologies here:

Nothing to apologise for here, what I said in my initial reply to you in here still stands.

 

[Wally Matera]

Nothing to apologise for here, what I said in my initial reply to you in here still stands.

You'' be back blowing Hardwick when we beat the Bulldogs in round 13. In fact, you'll probably think his the best coach ever after round 11 when we get through a week without losing.
Nice thread by the way... i think you might be onto something Captain Obvious.

 

[cairo tiger]

Bump. Where are you all now on Hardwick?

You can post your pissant apologies here:

My views are prettty evident- just search about 10 threads here.

 

[Wally Matera]

My views are prettty evident- just search about 10 threads here.

Completely agree with you Cairo, you're one of the few that didnt have their head in their arse over a few cheap wins. The posters and threads being created by some people at the moment are a ****ing embarrassment.

 

[Damo80]

Bump. Where are you all now on Hardwick?

Well, he's clearly not the miracle worker you want him to be... IMO, we're still ahead of the ledger, and have only been beaten by top 6 sides (Pies looking shaky, but on current form and ladder positions, you can't argue the other 3). Worrying signs in terms of seemingly stagnated development, and opposition sides (the good ones, anyway) seem to have figured out how to dismantle/shut down our game plan, and there is no Plan B.

Overall, I'd like to reserve my judgement till the end of the season.

 

[Damo80]

Probably because Chris Scott has about 30 players that could legitimately be in his best 22, so the inference would therefore be completely different.

No it wouldn't. I can explain the logic, if you like, but your statement is simply not accurate.

 

[Livonski]

Bump. Where are you all now on Hardwick?

You can post your pissant apologies here:

I'm unchanged on Hardwick. It's a view I've had virtually since his appointment and something that won't change after a loss to a better side. I've been frustrated at times at the way Richmond have played in terms of effort and skill and occasionally I've been confused at some of the set ups I've seen.
But I won't join the lynch mob and lay the result of last Saturday solely at Hardwicks feet. Yes, win/loss is his ultimate barometer, but losing to Essendon last Saturday is not.
So, no apologies from me Wally, I tend to disagree with most of the Hardwick haters because their opinions are flawed.
For instance, clowns on here see a sideways or backwards kick, slow play and a turnover and think they found the "game plan". What bullshit.

 

[_RT_]

You'' be back blowing Hardwick when we beat the Bulldogs in round 13. In fact, you'll probably think his the best coach ever after round 11 when we get through a week without losing.
Nice thread by the way... i think you might be onto something Captain Obvious.

Newsflash Wally I still think he is the best coach for the job. Unlike some I'm not jumping at shadows 9 games in to Hardwicks first season with a list that is capable of making the top 8. Yes I have some concerns with what I've seen but I don't believe it's as bad as some are making out.

 

[Damo80]

Why does the match committee - led by you - continue to persevere with a 3 man tall forward line, making our inside 50 look slow, congested and clunky?

Apologies for going to town an an old(ish) thread, but since you bumped it...

The question which strikes me as being the obvious follow up to your point above is: quality small forwards is one of our most glaring deficiencies, so logically, if you remove one of our 3 tall forwards, we have to bring in a less-than-spectacular small forward to replace him. It's not like we have Eddie Betts/Steven Milne playing at Coburg who could take McGuane's place. And I really don't want to see Nahas in the side AT ALL, let alone see he and Matt White become permanent fixtures parked in opposite forward pockets. Beyond that, you're really looking to kids (McDonough? O'Hanlon?) to be our spark, and source of structural improvement? Really? Or is there some other quality small forward that I've completely overlooked who could provide what you think is lacking?

It's one thing to highlight deficiencies and issues within the team, but sometimes you just need to face the possibility that our list simply doesn't have in it what we'd like it to at this stage. Just throwin' it out there.

 

[Rayzorwire]

Hi Wally.

Over-moderation is Carlton board and Melbourne board. This board is far more liberal and less moderated than you know it.

I missed this thread amongst the last couple of weeks.

FWIW, Equus, I think you mods have done a good job in a relatively difficult time since the earlier points on this thread were raised.

The board moderates itself, in its own way, in its own time.

When it comes to long term contributors, we do self-regulate, to a clear level which respects the content and the club, over the conflict.

All the long term contributors will either willingly (or in some cases, perhaps grudgingly) admit that despite the plight of the club at whatever time, this board has never descended into a place which doesn't support the club and never will - we've (collectively) already kicked those people out. Posters may not support the direction at the time and (hopefully) give good reasons why, but the only thing that is important in the long run - just like for the playing group - is that Richmond is our club, now and forever. Even the harshest critic will find some good amongst the rubble and praise that, while they torch what they see as being wrong. Many of us have had no other experience of supporting our club and the poor buggers who have lived through three decades of failure, understand these things all too well.

Wally and I cracked each other over the head many a time for many a year before we both knew, beyond any amusing 'forum-rivalry', how many laughs, how much brotherhood and enjoyment on so many levels we'd get from a few beers and a shared game of football we'd have together. I could say that about virtually all the long term posters we have here. We share a passion to love football and love a successful, better than everyone, Richmond winning grand finals.

That what this board is about. A National Big Footy Pub and 'Speakers Corner.'

Online in an era where the local pub of any defined neighborhood or tribe or football club has ceased to exist in its primal form, for most of coastal Australia. We're all so busy, so comfortable, so capitalised and feminised, so remote trying to get capitalised and feminised, so removed from anything which resembles the beating heart of where and why this club was born.

Yet somehow, we're all still so passionate about living life with football and the values of the RFC as a major part of it. For one reason or another, we gather to discuss our thoughts about these things that move our hearts.

This board (forum if you like), exists to support the RFC, all it stands for, and in the last three decades, more importantly, what it has stood for when it was fire-bombed by bad management, versus what it was in the eras when it was a place of success.

And if 33 years of failure and counting doesn't attract a lot of criticism, then nothing will.

Playing the ball and not intentionally the man, is why we all love to see Shane Tuck wear TIGER colours. I support all efforts to make this board that kind of place.

 

[rfctigerarmy]

I would say we were quite good in this area tonight.

 

[Livonski]

Bump. Where are you all now on Hardwick?

You can post your pissant apologies here:

What have you got for us Wally Matera ?

Right back at you buddy.

 

[_RT_]

You're welcome Wally

 

[Wally Matera]

You're welcome Wally

For what?

I can quote his press conference on Friday/Saturday saying that they needed to be released from the style of play that they were being asked to play. I was right... our style of play was wrong. He changed. Good on him. Its only 4 losses too late.

Our brand of football was wrong. Tonight was different. I'm glad he listened to me.

 

[Rayzorwire]

Now hang on lads...

We were great tonight against good opposition, but we've had a relatively poor month.

Seems to me like it's advantage to Wally and the prosecution, while the defence will serve after the bye...

Against the Crows, at the G.

Five straight after the bye, with key players rested, would set us up.

 

[Rayzorwire]

Right on, Wal.

Most of the few times Dimmer has looked good is after he's been dragged kicking and screaming into pulling a really awkward 132 degree turn in the face of overwhelming public pressure.

Credit to him for waking up, but you'd hope we'd developed and built and spent our way beyond the tail feeling heavily obliged to wag the dog. Hasn't felt like that recently, but we go into the bye in decent shape with a win tonight and a good shape to our season.

 

[Wally Matera]

Now hang on lads...

We were great tonight against good opposition, but we've had a relatively poor month.

Seems to me like it's advantage to Wally and the prosecution, while the defence will serve after the bye...

Against the Crows, at the G.

Five straight after the bye, with key players rested, would set us up.

Blind freddie could see our set-up and style of play was wrong. Tonight was different yeah? I like it when Dimma listens to me. He should more often.

Even the games after the bye wont tell us much. Sure beating Adelaide will be good, but on current form of Adelaide, that becomes a must. Its funny... the elephant in the room, believe it or not, is Gold Coast. No one wants to talk about it, but its there...

 

[Danog]

Rayzorwire? Wally Matera? Is that you two in the 2nd row?

 

[Livonski]

For what?

I can quote his press conference on Friday/Saturday saying that they needed to be released from the style of play that they were being asked to play. I was right... our style of play was wrong. He changed. Good on him. Its only 4 losses too late.

Our brand of football was wrong. Tonight was different. I'm glad he listened to me.

Well go on then give us the actual quote. Rather than verbal Hardwick, listen again and point it out.

http://www.richmondfc.com.au/video/2013-05-31/hardwick-press-conference-31st-may