Ruthless Dimma?

[Tigerland]

Herald Sun - 2009 qoute:

"If blokes aren't competitive, or they haven't got a strong determination to succeed, they won't be coming to this footy club."

That was one quote.

"I love the sides that I've been involved with, because they are tough and ruthless.

"At the end of the day, my number-one team rule is 'win the hard-ball when it's your turn'.

"If your players do that, you're a fair chance you're going to be on top more times than down below, so I hope to bring that to the Richmond footy club.

"But the players have got to find it with in themselves – if they're not competitive, I reckon they'll find themselves very quickly out the door."
___________________________________________________

Have we been ruthless for 4 quarters once in your tenure Dimma? - I think not.

Was this just hot air?

Tell Princesses like Morton and Connors to harden up or piss off.
Connors bench presses 150kg on the RFC video. What use is that when on the field the bloke doesn't swat a fly.

 

[turtle27]

Interesting post. What are you advocating?

 

[scarecrow2k1]

Surely you aren't advocating the sacking of Hardwick.

I'd say against the Saints we were close to 4 Quarter competitive. Against the Power last year also, against Freo last year (although I don't 100% recall all of that match)

Although I agree that it needs to be a regular occurrence instead of being able to pinpoint exact games, but surely we shouldn't be calling for Hardwick's head already

 

[Tigerland]

His Coaching job is possibly the safest in the AFL for the next 2 years.

The point I was making is when are we going to start seeing this ruthlessness that he was talking about? I'm yet to see a glimpse of it.

Timid tacklers, too many not prepared to put their heads over the ball.

I'm seeing the opposite of what he stated was the minimum requirement to play in his side.

 

[turtle27]

I get the feeling your your thoughts are being tunnel visioned by on the Hawks game, after hoping for a better performance. look back to the Sanitds game, and some of the games we played later last year, eg Freo game, Crows game, Swans game. There was some reasonable footy played on those days.

 

[djspank]

I think we were very hard at the footy in the Carlton and Saints game, moreso than our opposition. But I was very dissapointed with our hardness at the ball against the Hawks. Thought we would flourish in wet conditions, instead we just fell over a lot and got brushed aside by their mids who kept their feet and composure.
Mind you there was a noticeable difference in the size of the teams physically which you would expect.

 

[turtle27]

I think we were very hard at the footy in the Carlton and Saints game, moreso than our opposition. But I was very dissapointed with our hardness at the ball against the Hawks. Thought we would flourish in wet conditions, instead we just fell over a lot and got brushed aside by their mids who kept their feet and composure.
Mind you there was a noticeable difference in the size of the teams physically which you would expect.

Absolutely. The difference in age and games experience is a fairly clear indicator of that.

Richmond Attribute Hawthorn
186.8cm Height 187.6cm
84.2kg Weight 87.8kg
22yr 7mth Age 25yr 6mth
49.3 Games 106.0

Interestingly, we won the inside 50s, so our clearance work was OK, we just didn't make the most of it by kicking 6.16

 

[TOOs_Finest]

I am in agree-ance with Tigerland. There are a number of players who do not meet the minimum requirements with regards to commitment (on the ground). The problem is that this is hidden when the team performs as a whole. I watched Connors closely in the preseason games and it was evident then. Does not have a defensive bone in his body.

I think our selection of the subs so far this year has been completely wrong.

Connors was sub in Rd 1, when IMO he should have been either not selected or selected for a full game, knowing full well that he had to perform or he was dropped. Same for Edwards last week. Just when everyone believed he should have been given a rocket, we take the soft option and make him sub. The sub cannot be expected to have much of an impact, it's basically a free ride for a week.

Regarding the Saints game, I think yesterday showed us just where the Saints are at.

Still, we know this is just another development year. But unless certain players change some things, some more tough decisions should be made come year's end.

 

[turtle27]

I am in agree-ance with Tigerland. There are a number of players who do not meet the minimum requirements with regards to commitment (on the ground). The problem with this is that this is hidden when the team performs as a whole. I watched Connors closely in the preseason games and it was evident then. Does not have a defensive bone in his body.

I think our selection of the subs so far this year has been completely wrong.

Connors was sub in Rd 1, when IMO he should have been either not selected or selected for a full game, knowing full well that he had to perform or he was dropped. Same for Edwards this week. Just when everyone believes he should have been given a rocket, we take the soft option and make him sub. The sub cannot be expected to have an impact, it's basically a free ride for a week.

Regarding the Saints game, I think yesterday showed us just where the Saints are at.

Still, we know this is just another development year. But unless certain players change some things, some more tough decisions should be made come year's end.

And whose to say that isn't going to happen. I'm still of the opinion that Dimma has spent most of last year, and will again this year, evaluating where each player on our list is at. I can certainly see another clear out at the end of this year of players like Whitey, Nahas, Titch etc before he starts to structure up the side with players that he thinks can take us to the finals and further.

 

[Tigerland]

I get the feeling your your thoughts are being tunnel visioned by on the Hawks game, after hoping for a better performance. look back to the Sanitds game, and some of the games we played later last year, eg Freo game, Crows game, Swans game. There was some reasonable footy played on those days.

______________________________________

Your probably right in that my anger with the effort was brought out by the Hawks game, but against Carlton we really on played one very good quarter. The 1st quarter was a fail in effort.
The saints game was much better but again we were asleep in the 1st quarter.

My frustartion is also amplified when I watch Essendon play. Even their lesser players give 100% for 4 quarters. Switched on from the 1st bounce they play with the ruthlessness that Hardwick was talking about.

I don't care how many passes don't hit their mark or how many set shots are missed or how many free are given away. I want the intensity to lift. I want fight for every contest and gut running.
I believe as long suffering loyal supporters, we are owed at least that.

 

[TOOs_Finest]

And whose to say that isn't going to happen. I'm still of the opinion that Dimma has spent most of last year, and will again this year, evaluating where each player on our list is at. I can certainly see another clear out at the end of this year of players like Whitey, Nahas, Titch etc before he starts to structure up the side with players that he thinks can take us to the finals and further.

Exactly, I'll be surprised if it's not the case. I'm not too worried

______________________________________

Your probably right in that my anger with the effort was brought out by the Hawks game, but against Carlton we really on played one very good quarter. The 1st quarter was a fail in effort.
The saints game was much better but again we were asleep in the 1st quarter.

My frustartion is also amplified when I watch Essendon play. Even their lesser players give 100% for 4 quarters. Switched on from the 1st bounce they play with the ruthlessness that Hardwick was talking about.

I don't care how many passes don't hit their mark or how many set shots are missed or how many free are given away. I want the intensity to lift. I want fight for every contest and gut running.
I believe as long suffering loyal supporters, we are owed at least that.

Yep, Swans game at the G last year is the benchmark for mine, and most of our players are a year advanced from then.

 

[NQTIGER]

I think we were very hard at the footy in the Carlton and Saints game, moreso than our opposition. But I was very dissapointed with our hardness at the ball against the Hawks. Thought we would flourish in wet conditions, instead we just fell over a lot and got brushed aside by their mids who kept their feet and composure.
Mind you there was a noticeable difference in the size of the teams physically which you would expect.

Were you watching the same games?

we gave Carlton a start, and pegged them back in a 40 minute burst from the end of the second , till the end of the third.

If they had kicked straight in the game especially in the first, we would not have been in the position of leading into the last.

Against the Aints we gave them a start too or do we forget that in the euphoria of the draw?

Againt the hawks we started to "get into " the game after the horse has bolted, we need to be switvhed on from the start, we have been a bottom four team not a top 4 team that can play in bursts and win the game.

When dimma came he talked about not letting the jumper fall to the ground, i havent seen any signs of that, yes we are improving but so has the rest of the comp, i have stated in other threads that we shouldnt compare ourselves to essendon, we are a long long way from that, the player need some passion.

 

[turtle27]

Exactly, I'll be surprised if it's not the case. I'm not too worried



Yep, Swans game at the G last year is the benchmark for mine, and most of our players are a year advanced from then.

Yep, benchmark game for me too DD. When you look at the age and experience of players in that game compared to Sat night, we've decreased by 6 games experience, not much I admit, and 7 months in age. I guess the main stat for me is our number of less than 100 game players.

We had 17 players with less than 100 game exp in that Sydney game, and 10 players with less than 50 games. On Sat night we had 20 players under 100, with 13 less than 50. The Hawks had 13 players over 100 games exp, we had 2. It's no wonder we got flogged.

 

[Punt_Road_Roar]

I am in agree-ance with Tigerland. There are a number of players who do not meet the minimum requirements with regards to commitment (on the ground). The problem is that this is hidden when the team performs as a whole. I watched Connors closely in the preseason games and it was evident then. Does not have a defensive bone in his body.

I think our selection of the subs so far this year has been completely wrong.

Connors was sub in Rd 1, when IMO he should have been either not selected or selected for a full game, knowing full well that he had to perform or he was dropped. Same for Edwards last week. Just when everyone believed he should have been given a rocket, we take the soft option and make him sub. The sub cannot be expected to have much of an impact, it's basically a free ride for a week.

Regarding the Saints game, I think yesterday showed us just where the Saints are at.

Still, we know this is just another development year. But unless certain players change some things, some more tough decisions should be made come year's end.

So who are the players they should be replaced by?

The truth is we dont have any depth, that's what Hardwick is trying to improve, hence why we had 4 backmen against the Hawks that totalled 26 games between them.

You need to re-read your last sentence and remember it because that is the only thing that we can control.

 

[happy_punter]

Absolutely. The difference in age and games experience is a fairly clear indicator of that.

Richmond Attribute Hawthorn
186.8cm Height 187.6cm
84.2kg Weight 87.8kg
22yr 7mth Age 25yr 6mth
49.3 Games 106.0

Interestingly, we won the inside 50s, so our clearance work was OK, we just didn't make the most of it by kicking 6.16

Yep and its just further proof that even though its public knowledge the kick it high or bomb it long to jack system doesn't work, the players still do it and must be scared to find another way or theres another week of jacks sooking around punt road similar or worse of what he displayed saturday night. I can imagine that, unfortunately!

 

[TOOs_Finest]

So who are the players they should be replaced by?

The truth is we dont have any depth, that's what Hardwick is trying to improve, hence why we had 4 backmen against the Hawks that totalled 26 games between them.

You need to re-read your last sentence and remember it because that is the only thing that we can control.

I agree we don't have the depth to adequately replace guys like Jack, Lids, Newy, etc. But I'm confident an Edwards or Connors can be replaced by a Weberley or Nason. Just remember, I'm not talking about Conca, Batchelor, Helbig or Grimes here. These guys have been around 5 or so years, and personally I think there is an opportunity to make a bit of a statement to the group about minimum requirements.

A development year means developing the young players and the list overall. Lets make sure we notify possible list cloggers that there will be no such thing in future. I think the efforts of Nahas, King and White thus far this season (given their respective abilities) is a pointer to where all players' efforts needs to reach. These three guys may or may not ever be premiership players, but they sure as hell should help to define where some other more talented guys sit.