 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
MatthewBoydFanClub
Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Location: Elwood
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| gurugeoff wrote: | Ruscoe was tough, body on body, in a few contests
Madgen certainly has some impressive stats for one so maligned |
He skies a ball up in the air in the first quarter that results in a Richmond goal. In the last quarter he disposes of the ball straight into the hands of Dusty Martin for another Richmond goal. That's two goals he's given away. Then there's the contests he loses to his opponent where his teammates have to cover for him. Taking an uncontested mark that adds to your stat sheet doesn't make you an impressive footballer unless you judge footballers by the number of possessions they collect. |
|
|
|
 |
MatthewBoydFanClub
Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Location: Elwood
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| RudeBoy wrote: | | Skids wrote: | Nah, can't agree with 'Breathed new life into the team'... I rated our win over Melbourne much more convincing than that win.
Look, don't get me wrong, it was a top effort, especially to kick 7 in the last.
I guess I'm referring to the peanut brigade who continue to bag bucks... hello, he's gone, you don't need to keep reminding us that YOU think he can't coach. Move on, stop polluting every thread with your diatribe against the great man, we get it.
Fact is, we've been thereabouts most games this year, a couple that we lost by a few points are reversed and we're almost in the top 8.
The biggest turnaround as far as I can see, was getting Billy back. Totally changes our forward structure. |
+1
Btw, it also helps not playing 3 ruckmen. |
+2
Can we congratulate Harvey on a great third up effort in getting the boys up against Richmond after dropping the third ruckman and playing Callum Brown where he belongs in the center contests, without trying to create an argument that his predecessor, who will always be a legend of the Collingwood Football Club, can't coach. |
|
|
|
|
BazBoy
Joined: 11 Sep 2014
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I believe too much is made of “playing a roll” which Bucks was
Playing Callum Brown in midfield after the VFL coach put him there
Harvey may have hit on something
_________________
I'm not arguing--just explaining why i am right |
|
|
|
|
Pies2016
Joined: 12 Sep 2014
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| BazBoy wrote: | I believe too much is made of “playing a roll” which Bucks was
Playing Callum Brown in midfield after the VFL coach put him there
Harvey may have hit on something |
I think a bit to much has been made of this move. There are a number of recent high draft picks who played mid field as juniors but did their apprenticeships on the flanks in the seniors. Both Parish and Dow ( both inside top 5 picks ) recently attributed their good form to starting their senior careers as high forwards.
McGrath ( pick one ) started at half back before going into the centre a couple years ago. Walsh ( number one ) spent his early days on the wing. We can’t expect U18 year old midfielders to hold their ground or run out four quarters against seasoned pros in the mid field.
Brown has now played 50 games ( four pre seasons ) and dominated his last couple VFL games, so the timing seems about right to me. He needs to back it up of course but the signs were good against the Tigers. |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| K wrote: | | warburton lad wrote: | So the Fox Footy commentators feel that 'The Tigers had a very young side out there...". Give it a spell.
... |
Dunno how young the Tiggers are... But I know they are very weak. No good team loses 4 in a row, with possibly more to come.
... |
"Against the Magpies, they had nine players – Patrick Naish, Sydney Stack, Ryan Garthwaite, Rhyan Mansell, Riley Collier-Dawkins, Jack Ross, Thomson Dow, Mabior Chol and Jake Aarts – who had played fewer than 30 games at the top level."
(afl.com.au)
Dunno how many we had...
But another stat might look different anyway, e.g. how many players 21 or younger.
And:
"Richmond hasn't lost four games in a row since rounds 6-9 in 2017..." |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies2016 wrote: | ...
It’s a pet hate of mine when players stand flat footed to take the mark and the trailing defender has the time to punch the ball back 30 metres in the opposite direction. Happened time and time again yesterday. I get it that we aren’t great by foot but there is no excuse for the intended recipient to not keep coming up to meet the kicker. Rant over. |
Yep. And often worse: they stand like statues to take the chest mark and the defender takes an intercept mark.
OTOH, no one uses that to excuse the kicker when he has poor disposal efficiency and many turnovers. But some excuse the ruckman's clanger hit outs 'cos they claim all his teammates are useless. Not very consistent beliefs IMO. |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies2016 wrote: | ...
One of the things that makes you a good team is the ability to limit the opposition doing what they want to do. Today was as much about Richmond as it was Collingwood. Richmond haven’t won for a month, so it’s not like they are hard to move the ball quickly against, particularly with a third of their best 22 .... |
Yeah, this is the real Richmond. When I say their success was all about their fitness and injury management, some on here get very upset. (There are some closet Tiggers admirers here... and some who are totally out of the closet.  )
But the more we see the more that becomes obvious. Don't forget that the Champion Data stats showed that Richmond still had the second best (smallest) injury profile in the AFL (to round 14 when the stats were shown). The differences are:
1] small injury toll is not the same as zero injury toll, which Richmond have taken for granted
2] the injuries have been to players they really need, sometimes concentrated in the same position (e.g. leaving them with no ruckman).
afl.com.au:
"The Tigers' famed manic effort has dissipated. They ranked second in the AFL last year for forward-half intercepts but are 16th since round 13, their pressure ranks second worst in the League in that period and their goals per inside 50 conceded sees them placed 15th (they were fourth in this key statistic last year). Against the Magpies, the Telstra Tracker shows the Tigers recorded 190 sprint efforts to Collingwood's 217. Even at half-time, with the Pies trailing by 17 points, the alarm bells would have been ringing with Collingwood leading the sprint count."
As I've said before, it takes no skill to bring manic effort. It does take fitness and a clear run with injuries. Without those, a gameplan based on manic effort just will not work. We've seen that with Richmond the last 4 weeks. |
|
|
|
|
Pies2016
Joined: 12 Sep 2014
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| K wrote: | | Pies2016 wrote: | ...
It’s a pet hate of mine when players stand flat footed to take the mark and the trailing defender has the time to punch the ball back 30 metres in the opposite direction. Happened time and time again yesterday. I get it that we aren’t great by foot but there is no excuse for the intended recipient to not keep coming up to meet the kicker. Rant over. |
Yep. And often worse: they stand like statues to take the chest mark and the defender takes an intercept mark.
OTOH, no one uses that to excuse the kicker when he has poor disposal efficiency and many turnovers. But some excuse the ruckman's clanger hit outs 'cos they claim all his teammates are useless. Not very consistent beliefs IMO. |
Not meeting the ball carrier in the corridor is a sin because you know there “ should “ always be someone on your hammer guarding the area. I think we’re so used to taking uncontested marks in areas that aren’t dangerous, the opposition don’t even bother to pressure the marking player in our back half.
If you’re going to be an option up the middle you have to either be on the move out in front or have no opposition player within 30 metres. Obviously a flat kick helps too. Was nice to see Ruscoe and Henry kick a flat ball when it was needed. It’s an underrated skill. |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| ^ Lloyd said that as a new kid, he took a chest mark at training and Sheedy ordered him to run laps. After, Sheedy asked if he knew why. Lloyd said, why? His teammates, he said, were all taking chest marks at training. They're not my full forward, Sheedy replied. |
|
|
|
|
Pies2016
Joined: 12 Sep 2014
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| K wrote: | | Pies2016 wrote: | ...
One of the things that makes you a good team is the ability to limit the opposition doing what they want to do. Today was as much about Richmond as it was Collingwood. Richmond haven’t won for a month, so it’s not like they are hard to move the ball quickly against, particularly with a third of their best 22 .... |
Yeah, this is the real Richmond. When I say their success was all about their fitness and injury management, some on here get very upset. (There are some closet Tiggers admirers here... and some who are totally out of the closet. )
But the more we see the more that becomes obvious. Don't forget that the Champion Data stats showed that Richmond still had the second best (smallest) injury profile in the AFL (to round 14 when the stats were shown). The differences are:
1] small injury toll is not the same as zero injury toll, which Richmond have taken for granted
2] the injuries have been to players they really need, sometimes concentrated in the same position (e.g. leaving them with no ruckman).
afl.com.au:
"The Tigers' famed manic effort has dissipated. They ranked second in the AFL last year for forward-half intercepts but are 16th since round 13, their pressure ranks second worst in the League in that period and their goals per inside 50 conceded sees them placed 15th (they were fourth in this key statistic last year). Against the Magpies, the Telstra Tracker shows the Tigers recorded 190 sprint efforts to Collingwood's 217. Even at half-time, with the Pies trailing by 17 points, the alarm bells would have been ringing with Collingwood leading the sprint count."
As I've said before, it takes no skill to bring manic effort. It does take fitness and a clear run with injuries. Without those, a gameplan based on manic effort just will not work. We've seen that with Richmond the last 4 weeks. |
I have them with 7 - 8 of their best 22 out and most of them are new injuries since round 14. The other thing that’s impacted their recent performances is that if you don’t have any injuries for a couple seasons and then get them all at once, then you are effectively introducing to many inexperienced players into the team in one hit. You go from senior players only worrying about their own game, to senior players having to direct traffic to all the new players who don’t have a clue. |
|
|
|
|
think positive 
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| K wrote: | | Pies2016 wrote: | ...
It’s a pet hate of mine when players stand flat footed to take the mark and the trailing defender has the time to punch the ball back 30 metres in the opposite direction. Happened time and time again yesterday. I get it that we aren’t great by foot but there is no excuse for the intended recipient to not keep coming up to meet the kicker. Rant over. |
Yep. And often worse: they stand like statues to take the chest mark and the defender takes an intercept mark.
OTOH, no one uses that to excuse the kicker when he has poor disposal efficiency and many turnovers. But some excuse the ruckman's clanger hit outs 'cos they claim all his teammates are useless. Not very consistent beliefs IMO. |
always always always step into the pass!
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
Piesnchess
piesnchess
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Skids wrote: | Nah, can't agree with 'Breathed new life into the team'... I rated our win over Melbourne much more convincing than that win.
Look, don't get me wrong, it was a top effort, especially to kick 7 in the last.
I guess I'm referring to the peanut brigade who continue to bag bucks... hello, he's gone, you don't need to keep reminding us that YOU think he can't coach. Move on, stop polluting every thread with your diatribe against the great man, we get it.
Fact is, we've been thereabouts most games this year, a couple that we lost by a few points are reversed and we're almost in the top 8.
The biggest turnaround as far as I can see, was getting Billy back. Totally changes our forward structure. |
Agree re the Bucks haters, im not one of them. I actually rate our win over the Tigers as equal to the Deeeees one, both were truly great efforts, against all odds. 
_________________
Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor, but because we cannot satisfy the rich.
Chess and Vodka are born brothers. - Russian proverb. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| K wrote: | | K wrote: | | warburton lad wrote: | So the Fox Footy commentators feel that 'The Tigers had a very young side out there...". Give it a spell.
... |
Dunno how young the Tiggers are... But I know they are very weak. No good team loses 4 in a row, with possibly more to come.
... |
"Against the Magpies, they had nine players – Patrick Naish, Sydney Stack, Ryan Garthwaite, Rhyan Mansell, Riley Collier-Dawkins, Jack Ross, Thomson Dow, Mabior Chol and Jake Aarts – who had played fewer than 30 games at the top level."
(afl.com.au)
Dunno how many we had...
But another stat might look different anyway, e.g. how many players 21 or younger.
|
We had six, by my count: Cameron (23), Murphy (12), Bianco (6), Henry (4), Ruscoe (4) and Kelly (2). But it's a pretty arbitrary cut-off: if you went with, say, 20 games instead of 30, then Richmond had the exact same number as us, as Aarts (30), Stack (27), Chol (27) and Ross (25) – the last of whom was the sub and didn't actually take the field – all have a greater number of games under their belts.
In terms of players 21 years old and under, Richmond had five (including Ross) and we had six.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Pies2016
Joined: 12 Sep 2014
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ ^ ^
Cheers
The other point it makes, is that this is the sort of drop off you get when you are forced to replace quality and experience with just inexperience. |
|
|
|
|
BazBoy
Joined: 11 Sep 2014
|
| Post subject: | |
|
And don’t we know that at Collingwood
_________________
I'm not arguing--just explaining why i am right |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
