rfctigerarmy's view (vs dogs)

[rfctigerarmy]

I dont know if I will make this a weekly thing or every time I see the club play but here goes:

T. Zantuck: The man only got three possessions! Oh and by the way, kicked 3 goals and looked very comfortable. 7/10

R. Hall: Really stuggled I though. Had Rawlings who he wouldnt usually have but could see he stuggled against someone much better then him. 4/10

A. Kellaway: Did his thing. Couragous down back like he usually is and got quite a lot of the ball. 7/10

M. Chaffey: I thought was brilliant last night. What a difference Chaffey makes every week and when the leaders are out of the squad Chaff steps up. Couragous, Strong, great disposal. 8/10

L. Weller: First game for the Tigers and its hard to know what to expect. Ive never seen him play before so I cant compare him. Looked great and I cant complain. 6/10

A. Fiora: Needs to cut his hair. Other then that, happy with his progress over the summer. Had flashes but did his job. 6/10

G. Tivendale: Tivvers was great. 23 posessions (the highest in the game last night) highlights that. 8/10

K. Johnson: Quiet by his standards but didnt do anything wrong. 6/10

T. Fleming: Got in and under which is what we expect of him. Not many kicks but did give the ball off by hand when needed to. 5/10

C. Newman: 20 Posessions and not one went asray (sp?). Chris has excellent disposal and will be a fine player in years to come. 7/10

B. Ottens: Was the best out of the ruckman but I felt that he struggled to get his hands on the footy often enough. Nothing to complain about though. 6/10

J. Blumfield: The 'new' guy did alright. Probably played a bit like he would in the regular season with the same amount of touches. 5/10

D. Rodan: See Fiora (and yes he needs to cut his hair aswell.) 6/10

S. Morrison: Shone late in the game. Has a bit of Brown and has a bit of Treadra in him. This is the kind of recruit I like to see. Very impressed with his game, especially late. 7/10

J. Schulz: Quiet and I didnt think he would be. Needs to step up a tad more (I know he is young) to get a regualr spot. 5/10

G. Stafford: Quiet aswell. 4/1-

M. Coughlan: So used to seeing Cogs get 30+ posessions. Nevermind, Cogs will be Cogs and we still love him. 6/10

N. Brown: Bbbbrrrooooowwwwnnnnyyyyyyyyyyyyy 8.5/10

C. Hyde: Not a bad game by his standards.. ey CJH 5/10

A. Houlihan: Alright in patches and tried hard. 5.5/10

K. Pettifer: Started off a new player. After 20 minutes we had 1 less player.. he didnt do anything from then onwards. 4.5/10

T. Roach: Roachy. Hes only a kid and boy I was very impressed with his game. Not the most amount of touches but boy did he hit targets. 4/10

B. Marsh: 3rd Quarter (I think) he played alright but didnt get into the match much. 4/10

B. Nicholls: Lots of the ball by his standards but fumbled a few times aswell. 5.5/10

 

[CJH]

Originally posted by rfctigerarmy


...

C. Hyde: Not a bad game by his standards.. ey CJH 5/10

...

By his standards, yes!

By the standards expected of a senior AFL footballer...

 

[Rodan#18.]

Originally posted by rfctigerarmy
K. Pettifer: Started off a new player. After 20 minutes we had 1 less player.. he didnt do anything from then onwards. 4.5/10

Good effort Tigerarmy.

Actually Pettifer was good when he wasn't benched. Marsh was good. Nicholls, Hyde, Houli all made solid contributions....which as I've said before, is reallly important to the club. Hall didn't really do too much wrong...he gave a contest ...he'll be better for the run.

I thought it was hard to give 3,2,1 votes which is a very good sign....good even team effort.

pleased to see Roach has pace. We can always use more of that.

Better players, Chaffey, Morrison, A.Kellaway, Fleming.

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

while we won there is still a huge question mark over our backline.i.ll say it again ray hall should never go anywhere near the backline he just has no clue.
granted we have gasper to comeback in but with his knee who knows if he will be the same.
the wizza cup is about experimenting[sp]?why not give someone like moore a game last night and try schultz in the backline.

as for last nights game browns game was well worth what we gave up to get him.in one passage of play the ball was in dispute he recieved the ball while a moment earlier johnson broke free down the hf flank brown clearly saw this amongst the players and once he got his hands on the ball he kicked it to johnson without johnson breaking stride all with not much time between getting the ball and the merging players.this is what seperate.s the good players to the classy players.

was impressed by young roachy who not only has pace to burn but is very clean.
morrison played well as the game went on while weller while a bit quite showed that he can dish it out.

marsh showed he will be handy as the 3rd ruckman.

was a tad dissappointed with staff hopefully its just too early for him.
pettifer may have put on some beef and took some good marks early clearly he still runs around jumping at shadows.

overall a win is a win but nothing to write home about. after all its only feb.

cheers!

 

[Fishfinger]

Originally posted by tiger of old
i.ll say it again ray hall should never go anywhere near the backline he just has no clue.

Agree, but where do you hide him?
He is a poor shot at goal when forward and turns the ball over with slow reactions when around the centre. His best games have been as a ruckman but he isn't needed in that position.
The best description of him I can come up with is clumsy.

How about the "ball off the goalpost back into play is play-on" rule? This rule totally sucks. It happened to the Dogs last night in the last quarter and the ball ended up out of bounds. Miss the goal by centimeters and get nothing, miss by 2 meters and get a point. Off the pointpost would make more sense. Leave off the goalpost as a point or make it 3 points.

 

[mighty tiges]

Agree with others that Hall struggled at FB. Lucky Rawlings is as bad a goalkick as Richo. I was surprised Tuck didn't get picked for last night's game. Thought Weller did alright. With Gas returning and of course Ty able to go back to defence I'm not too concerned yet about our defence. It's not our backline that has let us down the past two seasons.

Although Otto didn't get much of the ball around the ground but he was very good in the centre ruck contests. When he was out of the ruck for the whole? of the 3rd quarter coincidently the dogs got back into the game.

In the third quarter, we went back to old habits of short and wide when under pressure after playing quick and direct in the first half. Hence we fell apart across half-forward. Thankfully Morrison leading up the "V" straightened us up again in the last quarter and with Otto back in the ruck we easily took back control of the match. It'll be interesting when Richo comes back whether we go back to bombing at the square and ignore other leading and better options.

Overall happy but as t.o.o. said its only feb.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Originally posted by Fishfinger

How about the "ball off the goalpost back into play is play-on" rule? This rule totally sucks.

Agree totally, Fish.

The reason why this rule actually works in Soccer, League, Union, Gridiron etc.. is that hitting the post is the difference between scoring and nothing (usually 'out of bounds'!!).

In Aust Rules, the goal post is the difference between a score and a score. And yet in this trial rule, it results in nothing.

Confounding.

 

[mighty tiges]

Agree FF and spot on ghost about the goal post being the difference b/w a score and a score. Just a dumb rule. Imagine a shot for goal after the final siren and its a point a difference. You lose if you hit the post and miss the goal by inches but draw if you miss the goal by 2 metres . It would have been better if the point still counts plus it being play on. At least there would be some consistency with the bouncing off the post rule.

 

[froars]

I wonder when they make these changes if they ever canvass supporters for their opinions, or just go and make changes for change sake.

 

[Rodgerramjet]

For the first real competitive game of the year for us I thought we did pretty well, to my mind there was only one really glareing outpoint that showed it's head and that was we still have the tendency to go to sleep if we get a half decent lead up. We let the dogs back into the game (and they could have won it) when we should have nailed them and gone on with the job and won by 60-70 points.

There were some very good passages of play and some excellent attack on the ball, most notably Tim Flemmings tackling and hardness at the ball was a feature but still needs to work on his disposal. I thought Kayne Pettifer played the best game i have seen him play to date however one game doeth not maketh the man but he did show that there is a determination in him to give it the best shot that he can and he did some really good things on the ground especially in the first quarter.

Another notable point was that there was very little start stop in our play which is a good sign as this shows a more decisiveness about what we are doing on the ground and i also thought that our vision had also improved quite a bit over last year as well.

 

[CJH]

Originally posted by Fishfinger

...

How about the "ball off the goalpost back into play is play-on" rule? This rule totally sucks. It happened to the Dogs last night in the last quarter and the ball ended up out of bounds.

...

Firstly, it was funny because no player from either team reacted to it - there was this huge pregnant pause before the players realised the ball was still live and by then it had moved to a position as to not be of an advantage.

While it does seem counter intuitive to not have a score for hitting the goal post, I would suggest that having an opportunity to score a rebound goal would make up for it. Basically, if you scored a goal once every 6 times it hit the post, you would be breaking even.

Is is not so bad a rule!

 

[Rodan#18.]

ummm

Richmond led by 9 points at the last change.
Take out the 2 bonus points for a rushed behind and 6 more from two super goals and we'd only have led by 1 point.

Still think we'd have won though.
Should have thrashed them.