Maybe Mrs Hardwick bakes the umpires brownies/muffins...Opine, Maybe there is a bit of biased perception. But that's exactly how I see it. Richmond are masters at pleading their case to the umpires.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Maybe Mrs Hardwick bakes the umpires brownies/muffins...Opine, Maybe there is a bit of biased perception. But that's exactly how I see it. Richmond are masters at pleading their case to the umpires.
It comes down to this for me; we cannot play all three of Gov, Harry and Charlie ahead of the ball in the ones, not as they currently are. Brisbane in 2001-04 were able to play all three of Lynch, Bradshaw and Brown because their midfield was in contention for being the best assembled in the AFL era, and their defence was rebounding via Leppistch like a modern defense, and because when you've got a matchwinner like Akermanis who can play like Eddie Betts as a midfielder, you have that luxury. I'd love to think we can assemble a list of that caliber, but it's not realistic.Whatever you do, don't propose trading a tall. You will get ripped to shreds.
It comes down to this for me; we cannot play all three of Gov, Harry and Charlie ahead of the ball in the ones, not as they currently are. Brisbane in 2001-04 were able to play all three of Lynch, Bradshaw and Brown because their midfield was in contention for being the best assembled in the AFL era, and their defence was rebounding via Leppistch like a modern defense, and because when you've got a matchwinner like Akermanis who can play like Eddie Betts as a midfielder, you have that luxury. I'd love to think we can assemble a list of that caliber, but it's not realistic.
We either a) create a gameplan of kick/mark, using set plays to create space for talls to lead into, eschewing smallball completely and maintaining our setup behind the footy to ensure we are not punished for turnovers - which was what we were trying to do under Bolton - or b) we trade out one of those three, keeping Kerr as a backup (and, let's face it, it'd be one of H or Charlie that gets traded, not Gov) and moving to a conventional setup, with more smalls to create more pressure to feed our intercept defense behind the ball. We have more than enough marking options ahead of the ball now, via Kennedy, JSOS, Gov, Harry, Charlie, Cripps (to say nothing of the players in the twos who could develop in that direction) to go ahead with a 2 talls setup. Gov plays too tall to count as a medium.
I'd be cool going for something innovative (it's what made me want Bolton to hang around, we just started to see the edges of what we could be capable of this year with the kick/mark gameplan) but Teague is not playing that way, not anymore. We've been better under him with a smaller squad - as with most innovations in the AFL, it came off the back of injuries instead of thinking ahead - than we have with a tall one, and he has more time for strong marking medium talls than Bolton did.
I'm concerned that our desire to hold onto the talent we've got will interfere with our ability to continue to build our midfield into the behemoth we need it to be.
If anyone is asking me what I would do, I would trade whoever was open to it of Harry or Charlie (consistent performer versus x-factor CHF/FF/mid; whoever you think is more likely to be productive over the long run) for as much as I could, which at this point would be at the very least 2 early draft picks, with which I would use to draft unique midfield talent whilst getting in Coniglio. We need to continue to get in quality at the bottom end, so that they can build with developed players ahead of them.
We're not done yet, not by a significant margin.
There are no structural issues whatsoever going forward with gov, harry and charlie. Crows went to the grand final with walker, jenkins and mcgovern. Right now west coast are playing with kennedy, darling and allen (and waterman you could count as well). hawks dynasty was built around 3 talls as well. The issue is mobility which charlie and a fully fit mcgovern are perfectly fine. and harry is about as fast as 200cm key forward will ever be.It comes down to this for me; we cannot play all three of Gov, Harry and Charlie ahead of the ball in the ones, not as they currently are. Brisbane in 2001-04 were able to play all three of Lynch, Bradshaw and Brown because their midfield was in contention for being the best assembled in the AFL era, and their defence was rebounding via Leppistch like a modern defense, and because when you've got a matchwinner like Akermanis who can play like Eddie Betts as a midfielder, you have that luxury. I'd love to think we can assemble a list of that caliber, but it's not realistic.
We either a) create a gameplan of kick/mark, using set plays to create space for talls to lead into, eschewing smallball completely and maintaining our setup behind the footy to ensure we are not punished for turnovers - which was what we were trying to do under Bolton - or b) we trade out one of those three, keeping Kerr as a backup (and, let's face it, it'd be one of H or Charlie that gets traded, not Gov) and moving to a conventional setup, with more smalls to create more pressure to feed our intercept defense behind the ball. We have more than enough marking options ahead of the ball now, via Kennedy, JSOS, Gov, Harry, Charlie, Cripps (to say nothing of the players in the twos who could develop in that direction) to go ahead with a 2 talls setup. Gov plays too tall to count as a medium.
I'd be cool going for something innovative (it's what made me want Bolton to hang around, we just started to see the edges of what we could be capable of this year with the kick/mark gameplan) but Teague is not playing that way, not anymore. We've been better under him with a smaller squad - as with most innovations in the AFL, it came off the back of injuries instead of thinking ahead - than we have with a tall one, and he has more time for strong marking medium talls than Bolton did.
I'm concerned that our desire to hold onto the talent we've got will interfere with our ability to continue to build our midfield into the behemoth we need it to be.
If anyone is asking me what I would do, I would trade whoever was open to it of Harry or Charlie (consistent performer versus x-factor CHF/FF/mid; whoever you think is more likely to be productive over the long run) for as much as I could, which at this point would be at the very least 2 early draft picks, with which I would use to draft unique midfield talent whilst getting in Coniglio. We need to continue to get in quality at the bottom end, so that they can build with developed players ahead of them.
We're not done yet, not by a significant margin.
See, I'd be going the other way. If you traded Charlie, you'd get more than you would for Harry; TDK is also manifesting more as a CHF than Harry is.I suggested the other day that Harry is the expendable one of the three you mentioned. Copped it as you would imagine. TDK easily could play the third tall forward/ ruck chop out role. Don't believe he will be a fulltime ruck. Charlie plays out of the goal square and Gov roams up the ground. Kennedy and Martin as the medium HF/ mids. Papley as the small forward. Harry's the expendable one IMO and we would get a really nice haul for him.
See, I'd be going the other way. If you traded Charlie, you'd get more than you would for Harry; TDK is also manifesting more as a CHF than Harry is.
If you traded Harry, you'd get yourself one of picks 2-6. If you traded Charlie, you'd net two picks in that range. McKay is projecting to be the more consistent of the two, with Charlie possessing more marketability and x factor. I don't know about you but I take the consistently good ahead of the occasionally brilliant most days of the week, and we have other potential x-factor players on the list already.
And Adelaide lost. WC got dominated by a substandard Collingwood for 2 and 1/2 quarters, off the back of their midfield being inadequate, and only one because a mid drifted forwards and kicked a clutch goal. Hawks cultivated an innovative kick/mark system precisely as I described, whilst also possessing a clearance coach who changed the face of modern AFL clearances whilst also being one of the best teams ever.There are no structural issues whatsoever going forward with gov, harry and charlie. Crows went to the grand final with walker, jenkins and mcgovern. Right now west coast are playing with kennedy, darling and allen (and waterman you could count as well). hawks dynasty was built around 3 talls as well. The issue is mobility which charlie and a fully fit mcgovern are perfectly fine. and harry is about as fast as 200cm key forward will ever be.
Firstly, Charlie doesn't replace Cas because Charlie doesn't ruck. At the moment, nor does Harry, and nor should he. He's a full forward.The mobility does suffer a little bit when casboult is there and even more so in those sort of conditions yesterday. When it's bucketing down and wet we should not play with 3 talls in the forward line but when charlie replaces cas there will be enough mobility there to make it work.
This is certainly true, but it's as much an indication of coaching style as anything else that we have gone far better under Teague with a smaller squad than a) we did under Bolton with like players, or b) how we've gone under Teague with a fit squad. That, out there on Sunday, was fairly close to the best 22, yet you'd be struggling to say that we produced our best footy at any point. Even if we introduce Charlie for Cas - which, as I stated, is a bad idea due to that leaving a fresh from rehab Kreuzer to take the solo rucking - it doesn't impact on how tall we are across the board. You can carry a certain amount of talls, especially down back, but ahead of the ball you need to be able to move the ball quickly and with a bit of dare, and talls either have to be at the end point - where the ball is received prior to the shot - or they have to be as capable as smalls when the ball hits the ground. To date, this isn't happening.The other issue that we have is that because we don't have any good crumbing forwards we really have no choice but to rely more heavily on contested marks which is certainly not sustainable in the wet.
There are a lot of moving parts in the way our forward line is shaping up but 2 pieces that aren't moving anywhere is harry and charlie.
Why the f..k are we discussing trading either Charlie or Harry? Both are just at the very start of a decade of dominance.See, I'd be going the other way. If you traded Charlie, you'd get more than you would for Harry; TDK is also manifesting more as a CHF than Harry is.
If you traded Harry, you'd get yourself one of picks 2-6. If you traded Charlie, you'd net two picks in that range. McKay is projecting to be the more consistent of the two, with Charlie possessing more marketability and x factor. I don't know about you but I take the consistently good ahead of the occasionally brilliant most days of the week, and we have other potential x-factor players on the list already.
And then we can watch Harry become the next Josh Kennedy!!I just couldn't trade away Charlie. I would bank that in the long run Charlie will be the far better of the two. I wouldn't hesitate to trade Harry at seasons end. We keep Levi and play him until TDK is ready while enjoying whatever Harry would bring us in a trade. Send Harry to the Swans for Papley, Cameron and a second rounder.
Idle musings. I'm concerned with how tall we are across our list, and with Teague's coaching - off a small sample size, I admit - seeming to work better with a smaller squad.Why the f..k are we discussing trading either Charlie or Harry? Both are just at the very start of a decade of dominance.
I'd be content with that, if from the picks we get for him we draft the next Chris Judd and the next Jordan Lewis.And then we can watch Harry become the next Josh Kennedy!!
Idle musings. I'm concerned with how tall we are across our list, and with Teague's coaching - off a small sample size, I admit - seeming to work better with a smaller squad.
I'd be content with that, if from the picks we get for him we draft the next Chris Judd and the next Jordan Lewis.
He is constantly bending/breaking the rules, but for some reason the umpires seem to overlook this. His constant holding of Jones' arm, his chicken wing tackle, the dragging down of Jones to the ground while at the same time appealing for a free kick just screams floggish behaviour.
Lol turn it up. Won the 2017 finals series by an average of about 50 points, were red hot flag favourites last year and will probably win it this year. You don't get that good by playing soft, gutless football and trailing into the contest.A bunch of crybabys is what they are. Soft players and a soft style. They do all they can to avoid contact except when its crashing in late.
They dont attack the footy they attack the man that just went and attacked the footy while they hang back. Gutless football. Won't be long till they fall off the perch.
Under Teague, I'd say our best performance was against Freo in the wet, and we had Charlie go down very early. I'd also say that was probably our smartest clearance setup, too, because we exited clearances to win the ball through to clear space on the outside far better. Either way, Charlie's injury that day made us smaller, which granted us something of an advantage.He's only had them all in for the Brisbane and Bulldogs game.
I'd suggest that it was working better with them all in.
Unfair, and strawmanny.And then we could trade them for even more draft picks.
Oh, all the draft picks we could have!
Under Teague, I'd say our best performance was against Freo in the wet, and we had Charlie go down very early. I'd also say that was probably our smartest clearance setup, too, because we exited clearances to win the ball through to clear space on the outside far better. Either way, Charlie's injury that day made us smaller, which granted us something of an advantage.
I don't know what the answer is. What I do know is, at the moment we have a great problem to have in that we have too much KPF who are AFL capable.
Unfair, and strawmanny.
Midfield is still thin, and reliant on Cripps, Murphy and Ed. Walsh is a good start, but we need more than just the one kid to take over.
Him in against WC would've changed the whole dynamic of the thing, I agree. All of a sudden, they've got to be mindful of a deeper threat than one of Casboult or Harry.We won despite Charlie's injury, not because of it. I dare say the Melbourne and West Coast results would have looked pretty different with him in the goal square.
Thankyou Johnny saved me some typingThere are no structural issues whatsoever going forward with gov, harry and charlie. Crows went to the grand final with walker, jenkins and mcgovern. Right now west coast are playing with kennedy, darling and allen (and waterman you could count as well). hawks dynasty was built around 3 talls as well. The issue is mobility which charlie and a fully fit mcgovern are perfectly fine. and harry is about as fast as 200cm key forward will ever be.
The mobility does suffer a little bit when casboult is there and even more so in those sort of conditions yesterday. When it's bucketing down and wet we should not play with 3 talls in the forward line but when charlie replaces cas there will be enough mobility there to make it work.
The other issue that we have is that because we don't have any good crumbing forwards we really have no choice but to rely more heavily on contested marks which is certainly not sustainable in the wet.
There are a lot of moving parts in the way our forward line is shaping up but 2 pieces that aren't moving anywhere is harry and charlie.
Him in against WC would've changed the whole dynamic of the thing, I agree. All of a sudden, they've got to be mindful of a deeper threat than one of Casboult or Harry.
Again, that relies on us innovating a way to keep all three working together instead of independently, which is something I'd be all for. But AFL coaches are rarely innovative, and rarely do so unless to compensate for injury created weaknesses.
If they come on - all or one of them - terrific. If Coniglio comes, great. If Dow comes on, if Stocker gets to an AFL level of fitness, if Samo can increase his output...Just one kid?
Walsh, Dow, Stocker, Setterfield.
Samo, Fisher, Jack can go through there.
Add Coniglio.
We always need more mids, but you don't trade out gun KPPs for them when you can use picks, or get them for Free.
Gov's 'tallness' is not overstated, because he plays taller than he is. I agree that Adelaide's forward structure in 2017 functioned fairly well, and certainly was innovative, but it was also completely ineffective come the grand final. They got swarmed by a smaller, more determined opposition, and were pressured out of their 45 angled kicks and their space creating leads, which were Teague's hallmark as a forward line coach.McGovern's 'tallness' is overstated. He's not a KPP.
I'd suggest that Adelaide's forward structure (coached by Teague) in 2017 was pretty innovative.
And we saw the two games that Teague had him for, Charlie was played a lot deeper.