Random observations about Saturday

[Deepthroat]

Sitting in the Ponsford stand among the 'Richmong umpire consulting agency' I couldn't help but walk away a little bewildered by some of the boys play (or lack of) that seemed to cost us the game.

Kicking for goal left me confused, Phil Matera and I think Chad Fletcher both had an opportunity some 25-30 metres out at stages. Both players elected to punt the ball so that it would pass through the sticks either bouncing or at waist height. Twice these "certain" goals were cut-off on the line by a quick Richmond defender and the Tigers got a rebound opportunity.

The boys also seem to struggle to read the bounce of the ball more in Melbourne games compared to WA. Maybe it's the softer grounds, the cooler conditions etc but they looked in patches to be a pace or two ahead of the bounce rather than on top of the ball when in the clear. The speed seems to be slightly off the ball in Melbourne compared to the hard Subiaco surface. This seemed to cost them time in gathering possession and put more pressure on them getting it on when gathered.

The above point could also apply to kicking where the old 'floater' seems more prevalent in Melbourne matches than WA.

Drew Banfield is not going to make a name for himself as a defender.

Half-forward is still the achilles heel of the side with Tuckey, Gaspar, Haynes and Embley having little influence or making crucial mistakes in sections of the game.

Although Richmond found it hard often to clear from FB to CHB, once they got this far they had little trouble in taking the ball further forward. I wonder if this was a result of the midfield watching Phil Matera and Wilson trying to stop Gaspar and co from getting past their defensive 50 and not manning up in case they did.

POSITIVES:

Humm
Cox
Collica
Cuz
Wirrpunda
Jacko
Milli
Fletcher

DISASTERS:

Haynes
Embley
Tuckey
Gaspar
Banfield

 

[schorner]

I think you're dead right with everything you say, especially about our half forward line. It's just not working at all. If we had someone talking 10 or so marks a game, or three players taking 20+ at half forward we'd be a different side. I agree with what you're saying about those shots at goal aswell. When Phil Matera missed that gimme early on I felt as those it was a huge let down.

I think if we don't beat Hawthorn at home this week, we're on the verge of a slide.

 

[Frodo]

I think that was a very good post Deepthroat

I have puzzled about the half forward setup but I don't think the traditional, Wayne Carey type CHF is part of the modern game. Haynes is the right type but there is either a lack of confidence or maturity there. Embley needs confidence.
I think that when we play well with our stucture we run through the half forward line with our midfielders, usually a quick ball into them and they lay off to the midfielder on the run. The other option is a wide ball that gets cut back for a forward, usually BB. What we don't have is tall strong marking half forwards. So long balls from Half back to Half forward are going to have a 90% failure rate. And we kick them far too often which gives a turnover and rebound opportunity for the opposition. IMO from the half back flank (other than when we rebound) the options are handball, short mark, run round the man or a kick to a half forward leading almost to the centre. These options give us a good percentage chance of keeping possession and getting the ball into our forward line.

 

[jod23]

I think Fido's goal that didnt go so high and was cut off was due to him going off his left foot, not his natural side. If he blazed with the wrong foot he probably would have missed, so he went for a low controlled kick to make sure he got the accuracy but unfortunately there was a Richmond player in the way.

That was just the way i saw it though, i could be wrong.