Positives Vs Sydney

[-JCK-]

Hyde has to go

 

[Tiger08]

Just compared our stats against the swans compared to the doggies who beat them..


Things that weren't the problem

1. getting the ball, even contested ball
2. tackling
3. clearances

Things that might be a problem
1. Disposal Effectiveness - although we had the same percentage as the dogs, we had relatively more handballs so should be higher

Things that are definitely a problem
1. Hitouts, but we still get clearances...
2. Letting them rebound out of our forward 50. Suspect this lines up with our number of clangers and the Swans cut us up going the other way
3. Kicking straighter

Interesting though that there's not a massive difference in the stats but we got smashed and the dogs won. Just shows that stats don't tell you everything

 

[sante]

I say drop King but we need a BP to come in to replace him.

Tuck is doing good tagging jobs and shouldn't be axed. Hyde has to be, got destroyed by Goodes.

Positives - The young players are doing well.

 

[bigstyletiger]

BP - it could be time for JON! Can't believe i just said that. Who else do we have to play back pocket. Connors is not defensively minded. Jackson? Casserly? Collins? Rance?

 

[The King!]

i think the biggest positives for you guys were the fact you kept on going in and trying in the second half, especially young guns like foley and deledio etc. Would of been easy to drop their heads.

You got some dud decisions against you guys as well.

Even though the tigers havent been winning every game they havent really played a bad one for a while, id say the club has a very good future.

Hopefully you bounce back v the crows

 

[deliberate!!]

Our decision making was shocking. Handballing to players under pressure when we didn't have to. Sydney scored about 5 goals from stoppages in the forward line which never should have been able to happen. We were soft and stupid for alot of the game. We did make the occasional turnover from poor skill but most of our turnovers were from stupid decisions

We've been doing that for 20 years now. It's become a Richmond passed-down-through-the-ages inheritance now! Our Captain is a prime example of that.

 

[Mario Speedwagon]

The only positives to come near the SCG today are all the HIV positives just up the road in Oxford Street...

 

[oxx]

Re: Positives Vs Sydney

The fact that interstate games are tax deductable.

 

[1980]

We didnt throw in the towel at half time and get flogged by 100+ points.

 

[Mario Speedwagon]

We didnt throw in the towel at half time and get flogged by 100+ points.

More like "thank ____ it started raining"

 

[Truetiger]

It is hard to find anything that positive about today. Cotchin and Riewoldt were serviceable, but they were not exactly fantastic...

They were more then serviceable. They were good knowing the lack of games both of them have paid. It should be the senior players that stand up and show the way. For 2 of our up and coming kids to do it puts shame on the others at the club. Well done Jack and Cotchin keep the good work up

 

[Tim_in_Philly]

Just compared our stats against the swans compared to the doggies who beat them..


Things that weren't the problem

1. getting the ball, even contested ball
2. tackling
3. clearances

Things that might be a problem
1. Disposal Effectiveness - although we had the same percentage as the dogs, we had relatively more handballs so should be higher

Things that are definitely a problem
1. Hitouts, but we still get clearances...
2. Letting them rebound out of our forward 50. Suspect this lines up with our number of clangers and the Swans cut us up going the other way
3. Kicking straighter

Interesting though that there's not a massive difference in the stats but we got smashed and the dogs won. Just shows that stats don't tell you everything

The Bulldogs kicked 18.4 - not many teams kick with that sort of accuracy in 22 shots at goal and lose.

You guys keep going on about the size of the SCG - its surface area (16,200 sq m) is now greater than that of Telstra Dome (16,100 sq m) and has always been a lot greater than Kardinia Park (15,350 sq m). The Olympic Stadium is smaller still (14,800 sq metres).

 

[29-little-CHAMP]

blood some kids

Yes this sounds good ....

polo
j.o.n
conors
myers is he up ?

How far away is rance ?

Just play them we got beaten by 80 pnts ....... if it did 'nt rain it would have been over 100 pts

>>> we cant bring in players like chip 'n' dale

Who would you drop ?

 

[Tiger67]

cotchin played well in only his third game done things that put others in shame like putting head over ball a number of times. deledio for me is soft rarely puts head over ball which is why he does not play in the centre.

You have got to be kidding!!!
He work rate and effort at ground level and pressure is as good as anyone in the team.
You just have to look at how often he is the player that gets up with the ball at the stopages, or how often he is the one who busts out of a pack.

I'm flabbergasted that anyone could say that

 

[peejay]

The Bulldogs kicked 18.4 - not many teams kick with that sort of accuracy in 22 shots at goal and lose.

You guys keep going on about the size of the SCG - its surface area (16,200 sq m) is now greater than that of Telstra Dome (16,100 sq m) and has always been a lot greater than Kardinia Park (15,350 sq m). The Olympic Stadium is smaller still (14,800 sq metres).

Nothing to do with square metres. More to do with the fact that the centre sqaure had to be reduced to avoid the embarrasment of having the 50 arc overlap the square.

This proves two things - the ground is two small for AFL and we are so dumb we can't adopt a game plan to suit the ground. Fiddled around far to much. When the swans flooded we should have gone long but no we kept chipping around until we turned over.

 

[Rayzorwire]

Newy's been decent
Bowden's been ok.

You're an easy marker JS.

Newman's mountain of possessions didn't count for a hill of beans on Sunday - half of them came back over his head shortly after because his disposal and choice of target was consistently sloppy. Look what Mattner was doing to us at the other end with barely half the possessions Newman had and you'll see how far short of 'decent' Newman (and McMahon) was.

I got a fleeting urge to kick the TV in when Bowden lost two contests in quick succession, then shortly after actually took a mark just outside 50 at long last, and proceeded to chip the ball 30m - high, sideways and behind the receiver so there was absolutely no chance they could play on. He hasn't learned a damn thing, still playing purely on the basis of getting 30 'effective' stats - not advancing the game plan by playing fast direct football.

Three forward thrusts to the edge of 50 in a game where we need to start scoring heavily, two result in Bowden's opponent strolling away with the ball with him left far behind, then the one he finally wins, he kicks slow and sideways, giving Sydney time to get 20 men inside our forward-50. Fair enough, it's an isolated three minutes in a whole game, but it summed up the rest of his day.

We can't afford to get rid of a liability in defense, then go and stick that same liability across half-forward to either lose every contest which comes his way, or slow down the game to the point we may as well just hand the ball to the opposition and start running down the other end (again).

 

[Skystyler]

Just compared our stats against the swans compared to the doggies who beat them..


Things that weren't the problem

1. getting the ball, even contested ball
2. tackling
3. clearances

Things that might be a problem
1. Disposal Effectiveness - although we had the same percentage as the dogs, we had relatively more handballs so should be higher

Things that are definitely a problem
1. Hitouts, but we still get clearances...
2. Letting them rebound out of our forward 50. Suspect this lines up with our number of clangers and the Swans cut us up going the other way
3. Kicking straighter

Interesting though that there's not a massive difference in the stats but we got smashed and the dogs won. Just shows that stats don't tell you everything

The biggest difference was the dogs flooded back and hurt us on the rebound. I fully expected Wallace to order a super flood. We played a lot more positive against you guys than we did against the dogs. Obviously, their ball use that day was superb - especially their finishing.

And Newman, Deledio, Foley, Thursfield and Cotchin all looked good to me yesterday.

 

[Tiger08]

The Bulldogs kicked 18.4 - not many teams kick with that sort of accuracy in 22 shots at goal and lose.

You guys keep going on about the size of the SCG - its surface area (16,200 sq m) is now greater than that of Telstra Dome (16,100 sq m) and has always been a lot greater than Kardinia Park (15,350 sq m). The Olympic Stadium is smaller still (14,800 sq metres).

I really struggle to believe that SCG is bigger than the Telstra Dome and especially Kardinia Park. If it is, it must be a circle because it's not nearly as long end to end.

Anyway, I'm not trying to take anything away from the Swans.. they were great on the weekend. All I'm saying is that they play well on their small ground - they apply great pressure and their run out of the backline is first class. I was checking out the last couple of years' results last night and the Swans have smashed the Hawks and the Bulldogs in recent times (until this year), especially at the SCG. They're a smart, hard, mature side who is very good at beating up on the young teams in particular.. full credit to them.

Hopefully the Tigers will bounce back this week against the Crows... it will be a good test.

 

[Wallaby]

I really struggle to believe that SCG is bigger than the Telstra Dome and especially Kardinia Park. If it is, it must be a circle because it's not nearly as long end to end.

It is a circle - far and away the shortest ground (about 139 mtrs), but also the widest (more than the MCG). I think they have a 45 Mtr arc rather than a 50 - certainly they used to. It's an enormous home ground advantage, because the players that play there for only one game a year get lost - they instinctively align themselves to the markings on the ground (boundary, centre square etc). AS a result they tend to run wider on the wings/flanks and push the ball deeper into the pockets instead of bringing it back to the corridor earlier.
The Swans developed the 'crowding' style to suit the arena - yes the surface might be bigger than the Dome or other grounds, but they let the opposition go free out on the huge wings - they ain't going to score from there. To find uncontested footy (which all teams do these days), you need to go wide. The Swans don't. They are the best contested footy team, because that is the best way to play their ground.

I reckon if we had played them on a real football ground, we might have kept the margin below the 80-point mark.

 

[Goldust]

Positives to emerge from this game.

1. I thought the game of Jay Schulz was very promising indeed. Rebounded exceptionally from half back in the first half and his attack on the ball was good. I have questioned him in the past - attitude and commitment - but I thought he showed plenty on Sunday and was one of few who actually looked competitive and importantly, wanted to be there.

2. Deledio continued his exceptional form. Kid is going to break open games soon.

3. The continued emergence of Cotchin. Thought given his chances he was quite good and actually gave most of his more experienced teammates a lesson in applying themselves.

4. The result! No escaping from an 82 point drubbing. gave us a clear indication that we aren't a force, or even serious finals threat yet and that we still has a ways to go. I think the near misses - especially the Dogs, Hawks and Saints - may have prompted many on here to think we are further advanced than we actually are. As a Richmond supporter and enduring the last two decades, you can't help but be patient. We are getting three, but it is going to take a little more time, but whereas in the past I grew angry as each year unfolded, I am looking forward with optimism. There are good signs, albeit we are going to slip up from time to time.
I look forward to the day when guys like Edwards, Cotchin, Riewoldt and Thursfield are stars and I can say to people, well they did it tough too back in the day, especially that day at Sydney in 2008.
As far as the result goes, I see the margin as a positive in that it will give us the necessary motivation to rebound strongly against the Crows this week. I tell you, the Crows aren't exactly in good form. Humbled by West Coast, fell in against Essendon and the game I saw them live in Melbourne against Carlton they were patchy and lacklustre. Minus Burton, this is seriouslya game we can win and should be setting ourselves to win!

 

[CoggaRules]

Positives to emerge from this game.

1. I thought the game of Jay Schulz was very promising indeed. Rebounded exceptionally from half back in the first half and his attack on the ball was good. I have questioned him in the past - attitude and commitment - but I thought he showed plenty on Sunday and was one of few who actually looked competitive and importantly, wanted to be there.

2. Deledio continued his exceptional form. Kid is going to break open games soon.

3. The continued emergence of Cotchin. Thought given his chances he was quite good and actually gave most of his more experienced teammates a lesson in applying themselves.

4. The result! No escaping from an 82 point drubbing. gave us a clear indication that we aren't a force, or even serious finals threat yet and that we still has a ways to go. I think the near misses - especially the Dogs, Hawks and Saints - may have prompted many on here to think we are further advanced than we actually are. As a Richmond supporter and enduring the last two decades, you can't help but be patient. We are getting three, but it is going to take a little more time, but whereas in the past I grew angry as each year unfolded, I am looking forward with optimism. There are good signs, albeit we are going to slip up from time to time.
I look forward to the day when guys like Edwards, Cotchin, Riewoldt and Thursfield are stars and I can say to people, well they did it tough too back in the day, especially that day at Sydney in 2008.
As far as the result goes, I see the margin as a positive in that it will give us the necessary motivation to rebound strongly against the Crows this week. I tell you, the Crows aren't exactly in good form. Humbled by West Coast, fell in against Essendon and the game I saw them live in Melbourne against Carlton they were patchy and lacklustre. Minus Burton, this is seriouslya game we can win and should be setting ourselves to win!

yes, but the near misses had alot suggesting that all we needed to do was re-introduce our "experienced" players that werent a part of them and they would give us the edge. Fact is that forever and a day, these so called "experienced" players have been hiding under the "stats" banner, when those that understand what "real stats" are and what "BS stats" are, have been trying to get the point across, that they are irrelevant, when you can have Joe Blow in the same position and he too could "chase" them and recieve the same accolades.
The other point that is becoming quite apparent is that foreever and a day, these "experienced" players have been excused by many here, in the sense of, "oh but if he had decent players around him", i.e if he played in a decent team, they would shine. The fact is, that you cant get a decent team, when you are relying on non decent "experienced" players to form that decent team.
Now get with the program TW and finish the cleansing job. Surely you can see what many can...or are you still listening to the radio for your ideas?

Like we even have nuff nuffs here using 6th in the B&F as their way to suggest that they are capable and should be in the side....like 6th in the wooden spoon team? FFS, thats like saying oh but the nag busted its arse, tried its guts out and ran 6th in a maiden so all we need is to put a good jockey on it and it will win the Cox.

 

[Goldust]

yes, but the near misses had alot suggesting that all we needed to do was re-introduce our "experienced" players that werent a part of them and they would give us the edge. Fact is that forever and a day, these so called "experienced" players have been hiding under the "stats" banner, when those that understand what "real stats" are and what "BS stats" are, have been trying to get the point across, that they are irrelevant, when you can have Joe Blow in the same position and he too could "chase" them and recieve the same accolades.
The other point that is becoming quite apparent is that foreever and a day, these "experienced" players have been excused by many here, in the sense of, "oh but if he had decent players around him", i.e if he played in a decent team, they would shine. The fact is, that you cant get a decent team, when you are relying on non decent "experienced" players to form that decent team.
Now get with the program TW and finish the cleansing job. Surely you can see what many can...or are you still listening to the radio for your ideas?

Like we even have nuff nuffs here using 6th in the B&F as their way to suggest that they are capable and should be in the side....like 6th in the wooden spoon team? FFS, thats like saying oh but the nag busted its arse, tried its guts out and ran 6th in a maiden so all we need is to put a good jockey on it and it will win the Cox.

Maybe your finest work yet Cogga.....great analogy!!! Couldn't have summed it better myself.

 

[CoggaRules]

Maybe your finest work yet Cogga.....great analogy!!! Couldn't have summed it better myself.

lol..i forgot to add, 6th in a maiden at its 56th start...

 

[tugga]

lol..i forgot to add, 6th in a maiden at its 56th start...

Or like being in a pub full of ugly slags and taking home the 6th 'best looking' one.

 

[CoggaRules]

Or like being in a pub full of ugly slags and taking home the 6th 'best looking' one.

man, if you are tiger that means you are a super stud...