Our Midfield

[Marcel Proust]

So would i, he coached Richmond to two flags haven’t you heard (from Richmond Q supporter equivalents).

The cabal of satanism / pedo elites is legit.

It gets downplayed due to the q stuff via misdirection imho.

The Rothschild part is largely historical fact

 

[Simche]

Lol, for the readers, allow me to retort -

Tackle count -

Rich 38 v GWS 42. WOOOOOW
Tackles inside 50 Rich 4 v GWS 5. WOOOOOW

One percenters -
Rich 51 v GWS 52.

Seriously.

How about
Hit outs
Rich 32 v GWS 19
Clearances
Rich 30 v GWS 24
Centre clearances
Rich14 v GWS 15.

Please enough of the bullshit narratives.

So how do the figures above translate to 'we mashed them in the middle' as you originally claimed? They don't both on a statistical basis or to the naked eye.

The hit out to advantage rate for Soldo was 36% and Nankervis was 28%.....

We won the game because we were more efficient inside 50 (we generated two less inside 50s for the record) and we were fantastic rebounding the ball (Short, Broad, Gibcus and Rioli in particular).

Nothing on the weekend is illustrative of our midfield being in the top echelon of the competition and I think that is what most people here are worried about. If you think everything is hunky dory, good for you, you are entitled to your opinion. I however harbor deep concerns and nothing I saw on the weekend assuaged me from those concerns.

 

[captain blood 17]

So how do the figures above translate to 'we mashed them in the middle' as you originally claimed? They don't both on a statistical basis or to the naked eye.

The hit out to advantage rate for Soldo was 36% and Nankervis was 28%.....

We won the game because we were more efficient inside 50 (we generated two less inside 50s for the record) and we were fantastic rebounding the ball (Short, Broad, Gibcus and Rioli in particular).

Nothing on the weekend is illustrative of our midfield being in the top echelon of the competition and I think that is what most people here are worried about. If you think everything is hunky dory, good for you, you are entitled to your opinion. I however harbor deep concerns and nothing I saw on the weekend assuaged me from those concerns.

So the midfield doesn't partake in around the ground stoppages? Ok. And further more, compare pressure acts, metres gained and disposal efficiency. There's your answer. We don't need our blokes racking up 30 meaningless touches. 15-20 meaningful ones does the trick.
And who was your last account. Curious to know who i am really dealing with here. A guy whose been a member since 2004 with 300 posts who claims we weren't good, but GWS had "an off day".

 

[DickieKnee]

We won the game because we were more efficient inside 50 (we generated two less inside 50s for the record) and we were fantastic rebounding the ball (Short, Broad, Gibcus and Rioli in particular).

And with pressure. We may have had less inside 50 entries but it stayed inside our 50 for longer periods. we locked to ball inside 50 for loong spells at times.

 

[Simche]

So the midfield doesn't partake in around the ground stoppages? Ok. And further more, compare pressure acts, metres gained and disposal efficiency. There's your answer. We don't need our blokes racking up 30 meaningless touches. 15-20 meaningful ones does the trick.
And who was your last account. Curious to know who i am really dealing with here. A guy whose been a member since 2004 with 300 posts who claims we weren't good, but GWS had "an off day".

So the leaders for metres gained were Short, Bolton, Parker and Rioli. Pressure act leaders were actually midfielders (or at least Graham, Nankervis and Cotchin) and GWS beat us in disposal efficiency 79.2% to 76.4%. I'm not seeing a lot of support for your assertions that the midfield was the dominant factor (operative word 'mashed' theirs) in our win.

Also I don't have another account. I peruse the forum at my leisure and occasionally post.

I do find it pretty amusing that your response to being challenged however is to insinuate I must be some sort of alt. You are dealing with a person on the internet, like everyone else here and diversity of view is what makes football great.

 

[Grrr]

So the leaders for metres gained were Short, Bolton, Parker and Rioli. Pressure act leaders were actually midfielders (or at least Graham, Nankervis and Cotchin) and GWS beat us in disposal efficiency 79.2% to 76.4%. I'm not seeing a lot of support for your assertions that the midfield was the dominant factor (operative word 'mashed' theirs) in our win.

Also I don't have another account. I peruse the forum at my leisure and occasionally post.

I do find it pretty amusing that your response to being challenged however is to insinuate I must be some sort of alt. You are dealing with a person on the internet, like everyone else here and diversity of view is what makes football great.

Must have been impressed that we evened the centre clearances, and scored 7 goals from that. Dow is a new addition, and was pretty impressive with not only 5 clearances, but the way he moved through the traffic.

I can see where you are coming from, certainly no A graders out there yesterday (Cotchin and Edwards but they are not the players they were, although it is only Rd.2 so not writing them off yet), but we were missing Dusty and Prestia. Adding a young players like Dow who looks like he has a fair upside as well and it is looking not that bad. Bolton when he goes in looks dangerous.

We did get a lot of drive from the rebounding 50. but we always did play slingshot footy.

 

[Simche]

Must have been impressed that we evened the centre clearances, and scored 7 goals from that. Dow is a new addition, and was pretty impressive with not only 5 clearances, but the way he moved through the traffic.

I can see where you are coming from, certainly no A graders out there yesterday (Cotchin and Edwards but they are not the players they were, although it is only Rd.2 so not writing them off yet), but we were missing Dusty and Prestia. Adding a young players like Dow who looks like he has a fair upside as well and it is looking not that bad. Bolton when he goes in looks dangerous.

We did get a lot of drive from the rebounding 50. but we always did play slingshot footy.

Think Dow is a great addition and while I'm still a bit concerned about his disposal by foot, you are right that he shows great evasiveness and is really creative by hand. I was worried he was very much going to stagnate in his development but I think there's a footy player there. Also thought Graham was greatly improved which is no surprise given he was playing underdone last week, but he's still never going to be that first option through the guts.

I know we play low possession, direct footy and get teams on the slingshot, but yesterday we had 2 of the top 10 possession getters on the ground (Short and Broad). Green, Taranto, Kelly, Whitfield all feature in that top 10 and I'm not sure we'll beat either the Dogs or Demons if their A-graders are allowed the freedom to rack up touches.

 

[Marcel Proust]

The most recent commented threads are often either this or the war in Ukraine. The two big issues atm

 

[Marcel Proust]

So the leaders for metres gained were Short, Bolton, Parker and Rioli. Pressure act leaders were actually midfielders (or at least Graham, Nankervis and Cotchin) and GWS beat us in disposal efficiency 79.2% to 76.4%. I'm not seeing a lot of support for your assertions that the midfield was the dominant factor (operative word 'mashed' theirs) in our win.

Also I don't have another account. I peruse the forum at my leisure and occasionally post.

I do find it pretty amusing that your response to being challenged however is to insinuate I must be some sort of alt. You are dealing with a person on the internet, like everyone else here and diversity of view is what makes football great.

I think short had 3 times more than anyone else at some stage

 

[Rioli2Rioli]

Im pretty certain we will see some of our younger mids start showing talent this year with VFL resuming and kids getting regular games and playing the game plan rather than just train and scrimmage games.

Dow , RCD , Sonsie , Banks , Brown , Juddy , Cumberland will all be much better to have the continuity and competitive games on a weekly basis
The VFL season will tell us alot in the next 7-8 weeks on where these kids re at.

 

[Elton Johns Wig]

View attachment 1346920


We can add Carlton to this list. Rebuild is on, if we wanted to "go again" would have traded for a decent mid or two. For all the media and pump up we did in pre-season that game against the blues was a disgrace.

Our midfield will get smoked in most games now Cotch, Edwards, Dion, lambert are cooked. Graham, Ross and the next wave of Mids are VFL "top up" tier level players.

Laughing in the pre-season, how about now Tiger71 tigerfan1961 Nebular Dr Tigris ???

Cooked? Somethings cooked

Some of you blokes should not comment without knowing what you're talking about. Rioli is spot on.




You cannot be serious?! Again, think before typing!



Exactly.

Some of you blokes are embarrassing yourselves with your comments. Either stay off BF when drinking or engage the brain when typing.

We won 3 flags in 4 years. Should have been 4 in 4 if not for a lanky American pr1ck who played one of the all time greatest finals in the history of the game (and done nothing prior or since). The rules have been designed to bring clubs back to the fold. This is exactly what is happening right now. The next few years will showcase (or not) how good a club we are.

In the meantime, I may need to stay out of the Tigers board for my own sanity.

Good post

GWS played a really bad game.

There were moments we looked clean but sooooo many times where someone in our midfield would make the wrong pass or hack it forward for GWS to be equally as average to allow us to make all those mistakes... Then they gave up

GWS game was more of a reflection on them than us.

Cast your mind to last year's performance for the standard of our midfield and that we are 18th in the comp for midfield stats

I hate to rain on your narrative but we lost the tackle count and one percenters also. This 'pressure' was really just GWS having a bad day at the office. If you didn't have the benefit of watching them play the Swans, that's fine, but the standard of that performance was significantly better than what they dished up against us. Probably didn't help them to have Hopper out either.

Re our standard in round one, that just reinforced our deficiencies in relying almost entirely on Prestia to not get smashed by good sides in the middle. We were pretty horrid up forward versus the Blues, but down back they did the best they could given the rate it was coming in.

This “bad day” crap really pisses me off, I thought we were past this. They had a bad day because our hunt was back. We applied significantly more pressure than Rd1. Pressure causes errors. When we first went on a tear and won in 17, it was (media) “Adelaide were down”, WE caused that. Chris Scott would always say his side were poor against us, not credit us, WE caused that. We don’t have to be “traditionally” statistically strong, disposals etc, those stats are often meaningless. You want 40 Tom Mitchell touches or 22 Dusty touches?

Lol, for the readers, allow me to retort -

Tackle count -

Rich 38 v GWS 42. WOOOOOW
Tackles inside 50 Rich 4 v GWS 5. WOOOOOW

One percenters -
Rich 51 v GWS 52.

Seriously.

How about
Hit outs
Rich 32 v GWS 19
Clearances
Rich 30 v GWS 24
Centre clearances
Rich14 v GWS 15.

Please enough of the bullshit narratives.

Yep

So how do the figures above translate to 'we mashed them in the middle' as you originally claimed? They don't both on a statistical basis or to the naked eye.

The hit out to advantage rate for Soldo was 36% and Nankervis was 28%.....

We won the game because we were more efficient inside 50 (we generated two less inside 50s for the record) and we were fantastic rebounding the ball (Short, Broad, Gibcus and Rioli in particular).

Nothing on the weekend is illustrative of our midfield being in the top echelon of the competition and I think that is what most people here are worried about. If you think everything is hunky dory, good for you, you are entitled to your opinion. I however harbor deep concerns and nothing I saw on the weekend assuaged me from those concerns.

Is our midfield the best? No, clearly not.
Is it the worst, or a bottom 6 midfield? No, it’s not. You can believe that not everything is hunky dory without going full chicken little. Are there areas to improve? Sure. Is the sky falling? No, it’s really not.

I know we play low possession, direct footy and get teams on the slingshot, but yesterday we had 2 of the top 10 possession getters on the ground (Short and Broad). Green, Taranto, Kelly, Whitfield all feature in that top 10 and I'm not sure we'll beat either the Dogs or Demons if their A-graders are allowed the freedom to rack up touches.

We had 2 out the top 10 possession getters….how much did we lose by?

We also had the top 4, and 5 in the top 6 on the ground for metres gained. And 6 of our top 7 for metres gained went at over 80% DE.

 

[Grrr]

Think Dow is a great addition and while I'm still a bit concerned about his disposal by foot, you are right that he shows great evasiveness and is really creative by hand. I was worried he was very much going to stagnate in his development but I think there's a footy player there. Also thought Graham was greatly improved which is no surprise given he was playing underdone last week, but he's still never going to be that first option through the guts.

I know we play low possession, direct footy and get teams on the slingshot, but yesterday we had 2 of the top 10 possession getters on the ground (Short and Broad). Green, Taranto, Kelly, Whitfield all feature in that top 10 and I'm not sure we'll beat either the Dogs or Demons if their A-graders are allowed the freedom to rack up touches.

You could mount an argument that the GWS mids are all A graders or there abouts (maybe not Green yet), but it takes more than that to win football games. They lost because they had little to no transition in their game from back to forward. Top midfields won't win you games without the back-up. Cripps and Petracca are playing like Dusty at his peak, so they are the oddities and dragging their teams over the line.

I thought we have been strong on the wings this year. They form an important part of our midfield group. MacIntosh while no star is a bit like Dippa from years past, unsociable, strong and runs in straight lines. I have always like Pickett, again an unsociable tough footballer. Even Ross played a decent game there. Both players rarely concede their wings and aid our transition play. At full strength if we ever get that, we will push every side if we play like we did on the weekend.

 

[Grrr]

I think short had 3 times more than anyone else at some stage

Short picks up 60% of his possessions in the back 40m of the ground. Use to drive me crazy but both he and Rioli are doing a good job of working up the ground and rarely lose possession doing it. But it is stats padding in that respect.

 

[Dr Tigris]

You could mount an argument that the GWS mids are all A graders or there abouts (maybe not Green yet), but it takes more than that to win football games. They lost because they had little to no transition in their game from back to forward. Top midfields won't win you games without the back-up. Cripps and Petracca are playing like Dusty at his peak, so they are the oddities and dragging their teams over the line.

I thought we have been strong on the wings this year. They form an important part of our midfield group. MacIntosh while no star is a bit like Dippa from years past, unsociable, strong and runs in straight lines. I have always like Pickett, again an unsociable tough footballer. Even Ross played a decent game there. Both players rarely concede their wings and aid our transition play. At full strength if we ever get that, we will push every side if we play like we did on the weekend.

We don't need to 'win' the midfield. We need to stop the oppo getting clean possession out of contests. Once we do that we are close to, if not actually, the best team in the AFL.

GWS threw everything at their contested midfield in their team build, and quite possibly have the equal best contested midfield in the AFL. But they don't have the range of role players other teams do. That is their weakness. Most of the better teams are similar, but with more diverse players.

Anyway, IMHO if we can equal the midfield we can win lots of games. Once we stop clean ball our pressure and quick movement comes into play.

 

[Spanish_Fly]

We certainly performed better in the middle this week compared to last, and compared to back end of last year other than the last game of the year against the Hawks which was also a good performance and also we had the younger guys in there.

Hard to make too big a judgement off one game where our rucks absolutely smashed theirs. Will be an interesting watch moving forward but IMO we need some of the younger, sharper bodies in there.

 

[captain blood 17]

So the midfield doesn't partake in around the ground stoppages? Ok.

So the leaders for metres gained were Short, Bolton, Parker and Rioli. Pressure act leaders were actually midfielders (or at least Graham, Nankervis and Cotchin) and GWS beat us in disposal efficiency 79.2% to 76.4%. I'm not seeing a lot of support for your assertions that the midfield was the dominant factor (operative word 'mashed' theirs) in our win.

Also I don't have another account. I peruse the forum at my leisure and occasionally post.

I do find it pretty amusing that your response to being challenged however is to insinuate I must be some sort of alt. You are dealing with a person on the internet, like everyone else here and diversity of view is what makes football great.

Interesting, so the total team disposal efficiency was 79.2 to 76.4, that's total team.
Individually we had Graham at 86.4, Ross at 83.3, Dow at 78.6, Cotchin 72.2. GWS Kelly 88.5, Ward 82.1, Whitfield 78.3 and Tom Green at 76.5. Not really sure your numbers are across it.
Pressure acts - Rich Graham 25, Cotchin 21, Ross 18 and Dow 17
GWS - Greene 19, Whitfield 17, Kelly 12, Ward 8.
Clearances - Rich 30 GWS 24
Cent clearances - Rich 14 GWS 15
Hit outs Rich 32 GWS 19

Lots of juicy facts there on why we mashed them. And keep in mind, you said they were missing Hopper, we were missing Prestia and Martin. So we had the greater losses in the guts, yet had better numbers. Outworked, outmuscled, out pressured.

 

[captain blood 17]

So how do the figures above translate to 'we mashed them in the middle' as you originally claimed? They don't both on a statistical basis or to the naked eye.

The hit out to advantage rate for Soldo was 36% and Nankervis was 28%.....

We won the game because we were more efficient inside 50 (we generated two less inside 50s for the record) and we were fantastic rebounding the ball (Short, Broad, Gibcus and Rioli in particular).

Nothing on the weekend is illustrative of our midfield being in the top echelon of the competition and I think that is what most people here are worried about. If you think everything is hunky dory, good for you, you are entitled to your opinion. I however harbor deep concerns and nothing I saw on the weekend assuaged me from those concerns.

What was GWS numbers. I noticed you left that off with regards to the ruck situation.

 

[Cdog71]

Where are the Rioli baggers

There was at least one of the “Rioli Sky ball” specials
…just sayin

 

[Simche]

What was GWS numbers. I noticed you left that off with regards to the ruck situation.

Flynn went at 42.9%.

 

[Elton Johns Wig]

Interesting, so the total team disposal efficiency was 79.2 to 76.4, that's total team.
Individually we had Graham at 86.4, Ross at 83.3, Dow at 78.6, Cotchin 72.2. GWS Kelly 88.5, Ward 82.1, Whitfield 78.3 and Tom Green at 76.5. Not really sure your numbers are across it.
Pressure acts - Rich Graham 25, Cotchin 21, Ross 18 and Dow 17
GWS - Greene 19, Whitfield 17, Kelly 12, Ward 8.
Clearances - Rich 30 GWS 24
Cent clearances - Rich 14 GWS 15
Hit outs Rich 32 GWS 19

Lots of juicy facts there on why we mashed them. And keep in mind, you said they were missing Hopper, we were missing Prestia and Martin. So we had the greater losses in the guts, yet had better numbers. Outworked, outmuscled, out pressured.

We won the contested possessions 133-115 (+18) as well.

Ruck Contest

Hitout Win Percentage

Richmond
Nankervis 60%
Soldo 45.8%

GWS
Flynn 35.9%
Green 11.1%


The Hitout to advantage rate where he quoted Nank and Soldo at 28 and 36% respectively is correct, that's RATE
Flynn went at 43% and Green 100%.

That looks bad for the Tiges in isolation, but they were winning FAR LESS CONTESTS.

To isolate that stat badly skews things, the reality is that GWS got well beaten in the ruck.

Hitouts 32-19. HOTO 10-7

 

[YeOldTiger]

Nothing wrong with admitting you went way too early. Let's see where we are at the bye.

The club made it pretty clear that these senior players had earned one more shot in their twilight years. That's good enough for me. Clearly others don't quite have the patience, even after 37 years in the wilderness, or are simply pretty greedy and expect flags every year ??

We have proven over and over that our game style doesn't require having a loaded midfield. Full ground pressure brings even the best midfields undone, if there is a total buy in. All our midfield has to do is break even and we generally smash teams. One of the best midfields in the comp didn't help the Giants on Sunday, they went down by six goals and were made to look pretty average under pressure.

I've been thinking a lot about our R1 loss. Absolutely everything went Carlton's way. 8 x 50m penalties, a couple of which entirely changed the momentum of the game. We were 20 pts up in Q4 and should have iced the game. We also should have been five or six goals up at qtr time but for poor finishing.

Plus that game meant WAY more to them than it did to us after a decade of floggings and spluttering starts to every season. It was their line in the sand game the moment Voss walked in the door. They have stacked their midfield but their defence and their forward line is bog average imo. It was critical for them to get off to a good start. Let's see how they're going at the back end when Cripps is beaten up as usual, Cerra is exposed for what he is, an outside flopper who melts under pressure and I don't rate Kennedy or Hewitt as anything more than B graders. After them it falls away badly.

The fact that we flogged them in the first and third quarters (losing Deon was critical) when we were all over the place, our rucks were seriously underdone and our best defensive mid Graham, couldn't get near it off no lead up games needs to be taken into account. I also believe we had been in a heavy training block because really, we want our guys firing and building momentum as the season goes deeper and deeper. Let Carlton and Hawthorn be March champions, nobody will remember that come July, August and September.

R2 was far more Richmondy and much more like what we can expect on a weekly basis. We DO have young midfield depth. Dow could be a very good player, Ross is improving again and RCD just needs a clean run at it. Were also drafting players who have midfield capacity and room for development in MRJ, Banks, Clarke etc. Whilst we've been winning premierships with hardened midfielders, how were we supposed to get games into these kids with the Covid situation as well ? They will just take time.

Potting the club's recruitment and list management after a R1 loss (which we could easily have won) on the back of a horror year with injuries and a horror two weeks before the start of the season with injuries, just smacks of impatience and knee jerk, couch-expert big footy ignorance. Slow down and think it through.

As I've said, maybe learn to hold your water until the halfway mark at least because some of the autopsy posts and the ones from last week in this thread look pretty stupid now, a week later. As Dimma is fond of saying, things are never as bad as they seem, or as good as they seem. You certainly don't judge our midfield on one poor showing.

Adam Cerra btw is a decent enough outside player but do you really want a player on our list who goes missing under physical pressure (like you get in finals. We saw GWS's mids taking backwards steps anytime Marlion went near the ball on Sunday), who costs $800k per season (a bona fide A graders wage) plus first round picks (no Gibcus, no Sonsie) and who has a history of flopping forward to milk free kicks ? He did it twice in R1 that I saw and innumerable times while he was at Freo, where I saw pretty much every game. If there's one thing I despise in a player it's milking free kicks (there's supposed to be a rule against it too !) This was thrashed out in the Trade thread last year where his flaws were exposed, considering the massive costs involved in recruiting him. He's played one good game when everything went his way. If he has a great season and career then good on him but he ain't all that.

 

[captain blood 17]

Flynn went at 42.9%.

How many taps he win?

 

[captain blood 17]

Flynn went at 42.9%.

We won the contested possessions 133-115 (+18) as well.

Ruck Contest

Hitout Win Percentage

Richmond
Nankervis 60%
Soldo 45.8%

GWS
Flynn 35.9%
Green 11.1%


The Hitout to advantage rate where he quoted Nank and Soldo at 28 and 36% respectively is correct, that's RATE
Flynn went at 43% and Green 100%.

That looks bad for the Tiges in isolation, but they were winning FAR LESS CONTESTS.

To isolate that stat badly skews things, the reality is that GWS got well beaten in the ruck.

Hitouts 32-19. HOTO 10-7

Hmmm, the ruck numbers seem a little strange. The way Flynns numbers were presented to me suggest he dominated. But, then again the person making the at guys did proclaim Gws had an off day. So confusing….oh wait, no it isn’t

 

[captain blood 17]

We won the contested possessions 133-115 (+18) as well.

Ruck Contest

Hitout Win Percentage

Richmond
Nankervis 60%
Soldo 45.8%

GWS
Flynn 35.9%
Green 11.1%


The Hitout to advantage rate where he quoted Nank and Soldo at 28 and 36% respectively is correct, that's RATE
Flynn went at 43% and Green 100%.

That looks bad for the Tiges in isolation, but they were winning FAR LESS CONTESTS.

To isolate that stat badly skews things, the reality is that GWS got well beaten in the ruck.

Hitouts 32-19. HOTO 10-7

Yeah, stats, what are they good for

 

[Noidnadroj]

So how do the figures above translate to 'we mashed them in the middle' as you originally claimed? They don't both on a statistical basis or to the naked eye.

The hit out to advantage rate for Soldo was 36% and Nankervis was 28%.....

We won the game because we were more efficient inside 50 (we generated two less inside 50s for the record) and we were fantastic rebounding the ball (Short, Broad, Gibcus and Rioli in particular).

Nothing on the weekend is illustrative of our midfield being in the top echelon of the competition and I think that is what most people here are worried about. If you think everything is hunky dory, good for you, you are entitled to your opinion. I however harbor deep concerns and nothing I saw on the weekend assuaged me from those concerns.

At full strength our midfield is top-4 in the comp:

Prestia
Martin
Bolton
Graham
Cotchin
Lambert
Edwards
Nank
Soldo

Unfortunately we have not been full strength since the finals series of 2020 when we broke records for clearance differential in a finals series.



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com