Key Positions

[CJH]

In the December issue of the Fighting Tiger, Danny Frawley raises the prospect of Ben Holland playing a lot more in defence and Andy Kellaway and Darren Gaspar spending more time up forward.

I worry that Holland will be too exposed for pace up back, whereas Gaspar is probably not good enough a kick to play as a forward. Andy Kellaway up forward does sound pretty good though.

------------------
This is a hallucination and these faces are in a dream. A computer generated environment; a fantasy island you can do anything and not have to face the consequences.

 

[Richmondfan#1]

I think that moving Gasper up forward is not a wise choice. He is probably our best defender. Without him there, we will not have a lot of stability and power. He is a prominant defender, why move him.

 

[Sister Patience]

OK, having been a passive observer on this site and on Roar Power for the last three months, the time has come to throw my hat in the ring! I have been living in Darwin for six months and though I kidded myself that I could handle a season away from the Mighty's, I am a pathetic shadow of my former self! I spent yesterday watching both the ressie's and the firsts of the Nightcliff Tigers v Palmerston Magpies (NTFL) and admit to having a tear in the eye when the two's sang that famous song! I thoroughly enjoy the contributions by all on the Tiger boards, particularly CJH who makes Mother Theresa sound like a cranky old wifie!! I look forward to all you guys providing me with the highlights of the season ahead until my return. This is the first year in 20 years, I will miss more than a handful of games and I don't expect it to be pleasant.
Look I hate the idea of throwing Holland up back. I am really hopeful about the prospect of Vardy becoming that strong bodied close checking big defender we need. I think he is could really take another big step this year provided he does the hard yards this summer. I also have a good feeling about Holland this year. I just think he may be about to shine as a CHF- consistent and effective. Does anyone have any feelings about where best to play Bowden and Hilton? I really like the idea of Hilton in the centre. Do you think Bowden is a little too laconic at times and could be harder at it? Sorry to ask so many questions and bring up so many other topics in response to a relatively straightforward thread.

 

[TigerTank]

CJH,

I have seen nothing that could convince me that Holland should be playing anywhere other than Full Forward.

He marks reasonably well, is one of the club's best kicks and he tries reasonably hard. On the other hand, he looks lost anywhere away from goal, and is not terribly quick. In defence he would quickly become exposed.

With Richardson back in the team and likely to be the number one focus of the opposition's defence, Holland will have an easier time of it as a leading forward than in 2000. It's easier to kick 4 goals a week on the opposition's 2nd best tall defender (or possibly 3rd best if Ottens is resting forward) than on the best week in, week out.

Similarly, what is the sense of using the club's best medium-tall defenders forward? Gasper is not a great kick, and A. Kellaway (who I believe was No.1 for marks at the club in 2000) looks so settled in defence I see no benefit in robbing the defence of his presence.

If there is any concern about A. Kellaway, it is his size, but again I think Vardy is a more mobile (and thus better) option for picking up resting ruckmen like Alessio or McKernan.

Richmond's defence was one of the best in the competition in 2000. If it ain't broke ... don't fix it.


Sister Patience,

Good to see more black and gold on this board.

Like you I would like to see more of Hilton in the middle to give Richmond a more physical presence in there.

But who would you replace with him? D Kellaway - the club's best tagger? King - the club's only genuine rover? Knights - the club's most skilled player? You would agree they are a handy trio if all are fit.

The best balance in my opinion would be the above three starting in the square (along with Ottens or Gale obviously), with Bowden and Hilton on each wing - Bowden to try and take the first handball off King or Kellaway - Hilton to apply pressure if the opposition wins first possession.

Under this scenario Campbell plays as a quarterback (or loose defender) starting from a back flank, or alternatively plays as a spare wingman starting from a forward flank.

Of course, there would be a rotation of the starting centre trio with flankers and wingmen (including Hilton, Tivendale, Campbell, Chaffey, Torney and, maybe, Daffy) to keep the centre square full of fresh players at each bounce.

In answer to your question on Bowden, he isn't particularly hard at the ball, but then again, that isn't his job. Bowden's job is to receive the ball from one of the centre square trio or a defender and deliver the ball accurately into the forward line. It's King's job, for example, to do the tough stuff in the first place.

No, if Bowden continues to develop as that flashy-style (if less-than-tough) wingman, there will always be a place for him in the side. He will hopefully develop in the same style as Camporeale, just as King will hopefully become our Ratten.

Either way, Richmond looks to be in the best shape to challenge for a top 4 position since 1995.

------------------
TT - Obligatory bad-tempered Richmond supporter

 

[Sister Patience]

Yeah good call TT. I can't believe I am saying this but I am concerned about Knighter this year. Don't get me wrong, I practically wept at the news of his demise as Captain, but his body is by all accounts not holding up as well as you would like for a key midfield role. I think King, Kellaway and Hilton in the middle for mine, though it would make me happier to be wrong on this one than right. Where do you see Bourkey bast played? I quite like the idea of him playing up forward. The first real Kamikaze full forward!!!!

 

[TigerTank]

SP,

I don't actually see Bourke in Richmond's starting 18 at all.

Having said that, I see him as a valuable part of the club's best 22, because of his versatility.

The difficulty with Bourke is that he can play many positions, but doesn't have the strength to consistently play "big" or the speed to consistently play "small".

I see him as a good spare parts player, however, because he can come off the bench and fill any gap that might occur in a game. One week he might take on the 3rd best opposition forward - the next he can play as a fourth tall forward.

If Richmond has injury problems again in 2000, and Bourke isn't one of them, I think you are spot on about a forward position being the best option.

If he puts on around 15kg, and gains a yard in pace though, there would be room for him anywhere on the field.

------------------
TT - Obligatory bad-tempered Richmond supporter

 

[Richmondfan#1]

Welcome Sister Patience! I don't have time to answer your questions now but I will at a later time.

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

welcome aboard sp the more yellow and black in here the better

regarding knights i believe the main reason he was given the chop from the captaincy is exactly what u said.id say frawley and the match comittee feel that knighter as a effective on baller his days are numbered due to his injurys etc but as a hf/fwd they can see plenty in him as a dangerous player.
with kighters talent the oppisition would be loathed to put an ave joe blow on him therefore forcing them to put their best mid size defender on him while the likes of daffy,etc will have a far more effect on the game.
i think we have enuff talent around the ground now to cover knighters loss in the midfield.
also i like to add knights shouldnt be banished to the hf/fwd line for the rest of his playing days but somthing like 75% maybe
cheers!

 

[oh_my_hat]

I, too am a little hesitant to use Holland on the backline and would not like to tinker with the bacline too much. I do like the idea of throwing A.K up forward to stretch the opposing defence occasionally and as has been alluded to already use Bourke in the role also.

I would like to see if Steinfort could develope into a CHB (pace may be a concern). I think we should try to fix up the backline and use that as a springboard for attack so we would need Gaspar, A.K, Hilton et al back there most of the time IMHO.

 

[CJH]

Welcome to the boards Sister Patience, please keep posting as much stuff as you can to this site and (and Roar Power).

TT, it is good to see that you are back to being the ‘Obligatory bad-tempered Richmond supporter’! I think we can only handle so much of the warm fuzzy stuff!

I view Bourke to be a similar type player as Harrison was for us. That is, a utility type who can be either small or tall (but with better skills!). Against Sydney last season he played the entire game on Paul Kelly, who admittedly didn’t have the fitness levels that we normally associate with them. Nonetheless, even though Bourke is probably 6 inches taller and supposedly slower, he still matched Kelly. Unless he whacks on a few more kilo’s I can’t see Bourke being strong enough to hold down a key forward position. I would see him more playing as a 3rd tall defender or as a tall wingman. In his favour he does have a fair few football smarts (which is sometimes offset by a couple of football stupids!!!).

I think that was quite a fair call on Knights Sister, one that I really hadn't considered. I knew that his injury was being managed, but didn't associate it with his loss of captaincy.

Nevermind. I am prepared to back whatever tough decisions the club - as long as they aren't patently stupid! - if it means we achieve the ultimate success.


------------------
This is a hallucination and these faces are in a dream. A computer generated environment; a fantasy island you can do anything and not have to face the consequences.

 

[TigerTank]

CJH,

No one can accuse me of not at least trying to be nice.

------------------
TT - Obligatory bad-tempered Richmond supporter