Analysis The deliberate approach behind Richmond's revival

[TigerImposter]

With partycorolla here watch the games, especially the ones we lost and compare it to the Fremantle game. It's about the execution, the players are getting to the places their supposed to be.

This is where I disagree bc if the players were not going to the right places then they were under another game plan This was the dickie short backward HB and chipping ball around
I think you guys have deliberately erased our first few weeks and have not sobered up for a month.

 

[mopsy]

No we didn't have a 3 tall fwd option so the game plan has changed for this reason alone .Among a few already mentioned reasons
READ THE ARTICLE AGAIN
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/afl...behind-richmonds-revival-20150609-ghk80p.html

Its interesting to note. In the 13 games where we went 3 and 10 we played three talls seven times winning twice. It seems three talls didnt work.
Trouble is. Of those first 13 games, in the 6 games where we played just two talls we won just once. Seems to me this failed as well.
We then went on to win 9 of 10 games with just two tall forwards. Did this work? Was it the best possible way to set up? Or was it we managed to get by with this set up.

Nearly all sides play with Three tall forwards in fact the most successful sides have certainly gone this way. I just wonder at times if we are too tall with both Griffiths and Vickery at over 200cm being asked to play kp. JR not being the quickest of players doesnt help matters at times.
I'm all for the three tall set up but im for a different type of tall in one position i suppose.

 

[DrMike]

Its interesting to note. In the 13 games where we went 3 and 10 we played three talls seven times winning twice. It seems three talls didnt work.
Trouble is. Of those first 13 games, in the 6 games where we played just two talls we won just once. Seems to me this failed as well.
We then went on to win 9 of 10 games with just two tall forwards. Did this work? Was it the best possible way to set up? Or was it we managed to get by with this set up.

Nearly all sides play with Three tall forwards in fact the most successful sides have certainly gone this way. I just wonder at times if we are too tall with both Griffiths and Vickery at over 200cm being asked to play kp. JR not being the quickest of players doesnt help matters at times.
I'm all for the three tall set up but im for a different type of tall in one position i suppose.

With the two talls we play more like Griff and Vickery as our primary talls, then Riewoldt is the roaming forward doing what he wants
That's not saying Riewoldt is a decoy, but sometimes it works like that, he just reads the play and does what he needs to, including moving all the way up the ground while or more of our other talls create the link up to our forward line

 

[TigerImposter]

Its interesting to note. In the 13 games where we went 3 and 10 we played three talls seven times winning twice. It seems three talls didnt work.
Trouble is. Of those first 13 games, in the 6 games where we played just two talls we won just once. Seems to me this failed as well.
We then went on to win 9 of 10 games with just two tall forwards. Did this work? Was it the best possible way to set up? Or was it we managed to get by with this set up.

Nearly all sides play with Three tall forwards in fact the most successful sides have certainly gone this way. I just wonder at times if we are too tall with both Griffiths and Vickery at over 200cm being asked to play kp. JR not being the quickest of players doesnt help matters at times.
I'm all for the three tall set up but im for a different type of tall in one position i suppose.

Good post and agree I wasn't a fan of the three talls last year , but this year it appears to be working.
I think the more measured movement into the fwd line has helped and Jack is playing like a mobile forward and the other two guys doing hits in the ruck
We are also carrying less passengers

 

[mopsy]

Good post and agree I wasn't a fan of the three talls last year , but this year it appears to be working.
I think the more measured movement into the fwd line has helped and Jack is playing like a mobile forward and the other two guys doing hits in the ruck
We are also carrying less passengers

I agree. we are making better decisions across the board atm, i also think we have improved a fair bit in team defense.

Imo with both Vickery and Griffiths, The ideal is for one of them to work hard on ruck work and maybe become a good ruckman spending less time forward. I think this has to be Ben. I have never thought Vickery has the desire to play ruck.
The other Vickery imo needs to become a 40 to 50 goal a season forward. Neither Tyrone or Ben impact the goals consistently enough imo. Nor do they consistently perform key forward kpis, this for me remains a huge worry.

We have been waiting a while for one them to make his mark on the position. Like a lot of us, i worry that it's never going to happen and all we ever get is cameos or mostly just okay performances.
After all this time i still cant categorically say we actually have a very good consistent kpf in either of them.This is why i am so keen for us to go hard at a key forward like Adam Tomlinson.
If nothing else it would give us a different type of tall structure plus he is one im pretty confident will become a good consistent player.
I also think as far as tall numbers go there is a real need for at least one more tall forward on the list. The type that is lacking is Tomlinson imo.

 

[TigerImposter]

I agree. we are making better decisions across the board atm, i also think we have improved a fair bit in team defense.

Imo with both Vickery and Griffiths, The ideal is for one of them to work hard on ruck work and maybe become a good ruckman spending less time forward. I think this has to be Ben. I have never thought Vickery has the desire to play ruck.
The other Vickery imo needs to become a 40 to 50 goal a season forward. Neither Tyrone or Ben impact the goals consistently enough imo. Nor do they consistently perform key forward kpis, this for me remains a huge worry.

We have been waiting a while for one them to make his mark on the position. Like a lot of us, i worry that it's never going to happen and all we ever get is cameos or mostly just okay performances.
After all this time i still cant categorically say we actually have a very good consistent kpf in either of them.This is why i am so keen for us to go hard at a key forward like Adam Tomlinson.
If nothing else it would give us a different type of tall structure plus he is one im pretty confident will become a good consistent player.
I also think as far as tall numbers go there is a real need for at least one more tall forward on the list. The type that is lacking is Tomlinson imo.

You are becoming my most respected poster on this site bc of your excellent knowledge and quality of posts
Thanks for your valuable input. Tomlinson would make my mouth water and solve a lot of issues,but I'M still worried about our Ruck stocks

 

[partycorolla]

TV played vfl fort he first few weeks. Stop kidding me
We just recently adopted the three man fwd line
Why do you bother going to games if you can't see what's happening ?
You may as well check the scores on your iPhone

Wrong again TigerImposter.... you have failed to read the posts.... a critical part of making an argument I mentioned the games from 2014.... not 2015.... Ooopsies. Bad luck try again!

 

[partycorolla]

Good post and agree I wasn't a fan of the three talls last year , but this year it appears to be working.
I think the more measured movement into the fwd line has helped and Jack is playing like a mobile forward and the other two guys doing hits in the ruck
We are also carrying less passengers

Wait wait.... I'm confused. You were telling me that 3 talls was new.... Now you are agreeing with my post saying we did play 3 talls at times in 2014?

It's ok, apology accepted. I'm not going to hold it over you. People get things wrong sometimes....

 

[TigerImposter]

Wrong again TigerImposter.... you have failed to read the posts.... a critical part of making an argument I mentioned the games from 2014.... not 2015.... Ooopsies. Bad luck try again!

WGAF about 13/14 we are into 2015 and beyond

 

[TigerImposter]

Wait wait.... I'm confused. You were telling me that 3 talls was new.... Now you are agreeing with my post saying we did play 3 talls at times in 2014?

It's ok, apology accepted. I'm not going to hold it over you. People get things wrong sometimes....

OMG back to the future revisited

 

[partycorolla]

WGAF about 13/14 we are into 2015 and beyond

You said we hadn't changed the gamplan!!! I said earlier it's been 2 or 3 years in the making. It's pretty relevant. Grown-ups would just say 'yeah, I mis-read the post, my bad'. Maybe you should just say that. it's cool, everyone makes mistakes, I don't care. But stop backing over them. I said we had 3 tall forwards in 2014 and mentioned several games. You replied saying TV had played in the VFL in those games but you were clearly talking about 2015 not 2014. You got it wrong.... I'm ok with, time to move on!

 

[partycorolla]

OMG back to the future revisited

Yeah sorry, I answer posts from the first replied to, not the most recent!

 

[TigerImposter]

You said we hadn't changed the gamplan!!! I said earlier it's been 2 or 3 years in the making. It's pretty relevant. Grown-ups would just say 'yeah, I mis-read the post, my bad'. Maybe you should just say that. it's cool, everyone makes mistakes, I don't care. But stop backing over them. I said we had 3 tall forwards in 2014 and mentioned several games. You replied saying TV had played in the VFL in those games but you were clearly talking about 2015 not 2014. You got it wrong.... I'm ok with, time to move on!

im not saying anything bc its bs as we have not consistently played with the 3 man fwd line due to injuries game plan or Hampson
so from 2013 first 13 games to last 9 games we were playing under the same plan according to you.
Then coaching staff and players forgot how to implement it for 6weeks in 2015 and then it magically reappeared again.
FMD move on mate youre trying to sell a blind man BS or you are making our FD look incompetent if this is the case

 

[RememberRoyce]

It's not an easy game plan to execute (well). Space has to be created. Sounds easy. But with defensive presses, it takes a whole team effort where players push out to create the space and one pushes in to take the kick. Obviously last year we had players with poor skills ( one link fails with a missed pass), players who are dumb/slow learners (space wasn't created/or decided 'stuff this I'm taking the game on') or lazy (again space not created or space created but no one pushes to it to take the pass.

IMO, it's not a new plan. It's the plan that's been in progress for a while now finally being executed well.

 

[DrMike]

It's not an easy game plan to execute (well). Space has to be created. Sounds easy. But with defensive presses, it takes a whole team effort where players push out to create the space and one pushes in to take the kick. Obviously last year we had players with poor skills ( one link fails with a missed pass), players who are dumb/slow learners (space wasn't created) or lazy (again space not created or space created but no one pushes to it to take the pass.

IMO, it's not a new plan. It's the plan that's been in progress for a while now finally being executed well.

That's why it'll be interesting to see how it plays against Sydney. SCG is a very small ground

 

[partycorolla]

im not saying anything bc its bs as we have not consistently played with the 3 man fwd line due to injuries game plan or Hampson
so from 2013 first 13 games to last 9 games we were playing under the same plan according to you.
Then coaching staff and players forgot how to implement it for 6weeks in 2015 and then it magically reappeared again.
FMD move on mate youre trying to sell a blind man BS or you are making our FD look incompetent if this is the case

Don't bring that dud into it!!! Still can't understand why the hell we thought we should bring him across....

We will have to agree to disagree on this one then. I think we've tried the 3 man before (with bugger all success) and that it isn't new. It is working now.... that's new. Doesn't mean the plan is. With TV out injured or suspended in previous seasons perhaps they went away from 3 talls because we didn't have a decent third tall. McBean is now almost ready but wasn't last year or before that..... Hampson... well, he'll never be ready... for anything.... Now we have 3 that are ready and in some sort of decent form (still a fair bit of improvement in both imo) hence it's worth going back to the 3 talls. DH stated earlier in the year that Lloyd was playing a 3rd tall role (why I have no idea).... so he was trying to get the structure the same but with clearly inferior/unsuited personnel.... thank goodness for some injuries which have allowed us to play more highly skilled youngsters in the team.... something we should have been doing from the start as per DH's comment re-kicking skills when he started.

 

[Tigerforlife78]

This is where I disagree bc if the players were not going to the right places then they were under another game plan This was the dickie short backward HB and chipping ball around
I think you guys have deliberately erased our first few weeks and have not sobered up for a month.

Sorry mum

 

[nineteen eighty]

I'd love to know if it has been a change in game plan or that the players are now executing the original game plan.
Love to get an insiders knowledge on what really happened.

It's an obvious change in game style to what was being played in the first part of the year.

Simply, two distinct styles:
1/ fast, play on game style (eg. Port, North). Handball is the weapon to get the ball moving quickly. Hence, higher handball to kick ratio.
2/ slower, more measured, in close (Freo, Swans). Kicking is the key here hence higher kick to handball ratio.

Some clubs can play both well (Hawks...although they are more 2 than 1).

Tigers started the year playing 1 and have made an obvious shift to 2. Clearly visible when watching the game and the stats support what the eyes see. What is also obvious as other posters have already pointed out is that whilst we are playing 2, we are not chipping for the sake of chipping. We still have forward movement. So we are slowing the game down, playing it on our terms whilst continually moving forward to not ease off the pressure on the opposition. Side chip kicks just lead to giving the opposition a breather and allowing them time to regroup whilst also placing pressure on the team to keep possession.

What killed us when we were playing 1 was turnovers. The actual execution of the game plan was ok in that we were getting players free, running off the mark, handballing to release players etc.. It was the next phase that killed us when we turned over the ball. I don't have the numbers handy but would love to know turnover numbers from round 1 up to game before Collingwood. And then compare to last 4 weeks.

Well coached mature teams can switch between game styles.

Kudos to Hardwick and the coaching staff for picking up on what needed to be changed and executing on it.

 

[Royce Hafey]

It's so nice to have a sh#t fight over why we're winning.

 

[nineteen eighty]

I agree. we are making better decisions across the board atm, i also think we have improved a fair bit in team defense.

Imo with both Vickery and Griffiths, The ideal is for one of them to work hard on ruck work and maybe become a good ruckman spending less time forward. I think this has to be Ben. I have never thought Vickery has the desire to play ruck.
...

Neither IMO is first and foremost a ruckman. Griffiths definitely not. Ben is a KPF who can pinch hit in the ruck. Vickery has scope to play as a ruckman but is still more of a KF than a ruck.

I hear what you are saying but Griffiths is definitely not the man to move into ruck.

 

[SpudsLoveChild]

It's an obvious change in game style to what was being played in the first part of the year.

Simply, two distinct styles:
1/ fast, play on game style (eg. Port, North). Handball is the weapon to get the ball moving quickly. Hence, higher handball to kick ratio.
2/ slower, more measured, in close (Freo, Swans). Kicking is the key here hence higher kick to handball ratio.

Some clubs can play both well (Hawks...although they are more 2 than 1).

Tigers started the year playing 1 and have made an obvious shift to 2. Clearly visible when watching the game and the stats support what the eyes see. What is also obvious as other posters have already pointed out is that whilst we are playing 2, we are not chipping for the sake of chipping. We still have forward movement. So we are slowing the game down, playing it on our terms whilst continually moving forward to not ease off the pressure on the opposition. Side chip kicks just lead to giving the opposition a breather and allowing them time to regroup whilst also placing pressure on the team to keep possession.

What killed us when we were playing 1 was turnovers. The actual execution of the game plan was ok in that we were getting players free, running off the mark, handballing to release players etc.. It was the next phase that killed us when we turned over the ball. I don't have the numbers handy but would love to know turnover numbers from round 1 up to game before Collingwood. And then compare to last 4 weeks.

Well coached mature teams can switch between game styles.

Kudos to Hardwick and the coaching staff for picking up on what needed to be changed and executing on it.

So we weren't chipping the ball around earlier in the season???
I must need my eyes checked as I'm pretty sure we were chipping it left, right and backwards for the first few games. Carlton, Melbourne, Bulldogs???
We've gone back to that game style but instead of going sideways and backwards, we're going forward - and executing better.
And even during these games, we had patches were we ran the ball but executed poorly.

Picking out one or two games proves that we modify our strategy for different teams. Good thing, too.

 

[SpudsLoveChild]

It's so nice to have a sh#t fight over why we're winning.

If someone handed us each one million dollars, we'd still argue over it.

 

[Calcium Man]

If someone handed us each one million dollars, we'd still argue over it.

That's because i can't understand why someone would give tigs2010 as much as me? I'm clearly superior to that campaigner.

 

[nineteen eighty]

So we weren't chipping the ball around earlier in the season???
I must need my eyes checked as I'm pretty sure we were chipping it left, right and backwards for the first few games. Carlton, Melbourne, Bulldogs???
We've gone back to that game style but instead of going sideways and backwards, we're going forward - and executing better.
And even during these games, we had patches were we ran the ball but executed poorly.

Picking out one or two games proves that we modify our strategy for different teams. Good thing, too.

First up, your avatar is mesmerizing. Brilliant!

We were actually trying to play both styles and getting both wrong. The chipping was definitely happening as was the quick, play on style. The quick game was coming undone with our turnovers.

Sign of a good side that can modify our strategy. I must say though that the last four weeks have been a lot more controlled with keeping possession of the ball...without the sideways and backwards chipping.

 

[SpudsLoveChild]

First up, your avatar is mesmerizing. Brilliant!

We were actually trying to play both styles and getting both wrong. The chipping was definitely happening as was the quick, play on style. The quick game was coming undone with our turnovers.

Sign of a good side that can modify our strategy. I must say though that the last four weeks have been a lot more controlled with keeping possession of the ball...without the sideways and backwards chipping.

Yep...agree with it all.
Can't take credit for the Dimma avatar though.