Game Day Tiges v Roos

[eZyT]

Nah.

George and Dynastical Richmond Chaos were a mutualistic symbiosis.

He fit a very specific niche. And fit it perfectly.

But he is not, and has never been, a talented footballer. He has athleticism. That's it.

He can't kick, can't handball, can't make a decision under pressure, has no vision, no creativity, can't find the ball or break a tackle.

He is an okay grab, a good tackler, with great acceleration and elite agility.

I've said this for years, but there's no point in a great sidestep if you keep using it to step into trouble.

He is not out of form. This is Castagna. His one wood has been taken away from him. And he has no other clubs.

Is uniquely specialised in what he does. He cannot play another position. He can't go to the backline. He can't play the wing. And there's no more role for his type of small forward.

I think the truth probably lies half way between you and me.


probably I bit closer to me.

theres 10 footballers on every list in the AFL getting paid more than the PM,

who look like champions in a winning side, and limited in a losing side.

ours just accepted cabinet minister rates, and won 3 flags.

 

[DavidSSS]

Yep. I'm still trying to work out how we can get Tommy firing again. The forward structure doesn't help. We need to play Tom one out and play other forwards wider. Caddy as a decoy leading forward would be handy to open up Lynchy's corridor. Our forward line usually looks too crowded in the hot spot 20 metres in front of goal.
Further, the hesitation in our ball carriers and backward kicks and handballs play into the hands of intercept defenders.

Recruiting needs should be centred around straight line runners. This is why I'm excited about Hugo (Bryan Wood) Ralph Smith.

Lynch is surrounded by 3 or 4 players every time. He seems to be almost playing a decoy role at the moment (because of injury?). But the decoy doesn't work when the defence outnumbers the forwards because the defence can just send a couple to Lynch and still have plenty of players for all the other forwards. Way too crowded in our forward line and we need to do something about it - take defenders up the ground or something.

It just isn't working.

Teams now block is space in front of him to run into and he is regularly held in packs and I think the club is really frustrated that the umpires continually ignore it.

This is also true along with everything else. I only watched the highlights of the game but in one instance Lynch is surrounded by 3 or 4 defenders, one of whom clearly has his hands on Lynch's shoulder. Lynch is throwing his hands up because he can't get near the ball. How is this not high contact? Why do the umpires ignore this?

The adjudication of the game is simply farcical.

DS

 

[tigerdell]

It's hugely overrated. If someone with access to the more detailed stats can present a case for significant change then I'm all ears, but based on what is available it just isn't there.

The common theme seems to be the game is now all chip, mark, chip mark with uncontested marks everywhere but the numbers just don't back that up. The difference is too negligible to make a significant impact. It's always worth mentioning that the biggest factor in uncontested mark numbers isn't the man on the mark, but the other 17 players closing down the outlet, or more specifically having a team method of wanting to do that.

I think the sense of frustration with the game is as much emotion clouding views as anything and in our case, the edge being taken off the interest in the game because of the prolonged success.

It appears to have affected our zone / team positioning making it less effective at closing the outlet and forcing a down the line kick.
We havent been able to find the right structure which makes our players look like bludgers.
Or we have too many kids who get post and don't get to the right spots

 

[DavidSSS]

The weird thing about the chip mark stand game is that it is happening in some games and not others.

We are seeing games with well over 200 uncontested marks and other games with around 150, which is why the overall number of uncontested marks per game is only rising a bit. I don't have the stats but not sure how many games had so many uncontested marks in the past - were there more games near the average or just as many outliers?

DS

 

[theglove3]

Agree with many.
Forward structure appears shot.
Couple of times Tom and Jackmond were trying to mark the same ball.
Then in the 3rd Parker and Titch were suddenly better options.
Tom and Jackmond need to go out for a beer and get their synchronisation happening.
Oh wait, you can't even do that at the moment.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

The common theme seems to be the game is now all chip, mark, chip mark with uncontested marks everywhere but the numbers just don't back that up. The difference is too negligible to make a significant impact. It's always worth mentioning that the biggest factor in uncontested mark numbers isn't the man on the mark, but the other 17 players closing down the outlet, or more specifically having a team method of wanting to do that.

Average is 167 uncontested marks per game, highest outside the peak years of 2006-09. However the average score per game is 28 points lower than that period. Back then it was the fashion to run down the clock at the end of a quarter, but also to switch play. The footy was uncontested but typically end-to-end. This season is often just plain stagnant.

Contested possessions as a ratio of total possessions are at a 12-year low; tackles at a 13-year low, hit outs at a 13-year low. These point to less ball in dispute, which has been converted to time in (safe) possession.

Hocking and his team of nerdlingers were smart enough to bring Richmond undone, but not smart enough to avoid killing the sport.

 

[tigermike]

Lynch is surrounded by 3 or 4 players every time. He seems to be almost playing a decoy role at the moment (because of injury?). But the decoy doesn't work when the defence outnumbers the forwards because the defence can just send a couple to Lynch and still have plenty of players for all the other forwards. Way too crowded in our forward line and we need to do something about it - take defenders up the ground or something.

It just isn't working.



This is also true along with everything else. I only watched the highlights of the game but in one instance Lynch is surrounded by 3 or 4 defenders, one of whom clearly has his hands on Lynch's shoulder. Lynch is throwing his hands up because he can't get near the ball. How is this not high contact? Why do the umpires ignore this?

The adjudication of the game is simply farcical.

DS

Hard to work out why our fwd line becomes crowded when we can't attend games so all we see is the narrow view on TV. Yesterday just one example was when Ralphsmith took a mark near the wing and he looked up thinking about playing on but stopped to go back behind his mark. Must have been no viable options upfield...but why? We couldn't see. Did North crowd our fwd line and block off leads from Jack or Parker or Lynch? Did our h-fwds and mids fail to run back to become options?
Lynch has been moving so poorly I wonder if his knee is playing up?

 

[DavidSSS]

Hard to work out why our fwd line becomes crowded when we can't attend games so all we see is the narrow view on TV. Yesterday just one example was when Ralphsmith took a mark near the wing and he looked up thinking about playing on but stopped to go back behind his mark. Must have been no viable options upfield...but why? We couldn't see. Did North crowd our fwd line and block off leads from Jack or Parker or Lynch? Did our h-fwds and mids fail to run back to become options?
Lynch has been moving so poorly I wonder if his knee is playing up?

So true, you see more at the game.

I didn't even see the TV so was relying on the radio call, can see even less!

DS

 

[TigerForce]

no way. Good depth at worst

Hard to work out why our fwd line becomes crowded when we can't attend games so all we see is the narrow view on TV. Yesterday just one example was when Ralphsmith took a mark near the wing and he looked up thinking about playing on but stopped to go back behind his mark. Must have been no viable options upfield...but why? We couldn't see. Did North crowd our fwd line and block off leads from Jack or Parker or Lynch? Did our h-fwds and mids fail to run back to become options?
Lynch has been moving so poorly I wonder if his knee is playing up?

Like all inexperienced teams do, flood.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

How many in 2019 please LTRTR?

159

 

[TigerMasochist]

Like all inexperirenced teams do, flood.

Experienced ones do that as well.
Carry an extra man back, try to get your forwards to work desperately hard back up the ground without the ball to create congestion n crowd the opposition forward half, searching to force the turnover. Then ram back the other way at 100m.p.h.
Unfortunately we're often not quite working hard enough going either way, probably through having so many injuries n new kids unsettling the team structure.
If we don't roll back into position quick enough we get sliced n diced by the opposition with uncontested chip kicks n overlap run. If we don't roll forward quickly enough or the forwards have been sucked to far up the ground chasing tail, when we do force a turnover we can't get anything but defenders blanketing our forward fifty arc. So we stop n prop, go sideways n backwards waiting for someone to create a crowd or simply bomb blindly n pray for miracles.

 

[Rod]

Dimma mentioned in his post match that we were getting slaughtered on turnover/transition in our forward half because of inexperience… moved Edwards and Baker forward after half time to remedy.

Not something I noticed but thought it was interesting comment.

Very hard to defend the 12-15m kick… and even harder to defend it when the man on the mark is a statue. As a result teams can move the ball forward with these dinky little kicks whereas they tended to have to go sideways in past years and weren’t rewarded as much…. It’s a *smile* rule… what’s the point of manning the mark?

Same as the kick in rule. May as well bounce the ball on the wing after a point is kicked… actually why not bounce it in the middle… these stupid rules, designed to increase scoring, so they can insert more ads in telecasts, are making the game unwatchable. I want to watch a contest… not a game of keepings off.

 

[Ridley]

Average is 167 uncontested marks per game, highest outside the peak years of 2006-09. However the average score per game is 28 points lower than that period. Back then it was the fashion to run down the clock at the end of a quarter, but also to switch play. The footy was uncontested but typically end-to-end. This season is often just plain stagnant.

Contested possessions as a ratio of total possessions are at a 12-year low; tackles at a 13-year low, hit outs at a 13-year low. These point to less ball in dispute, which has been converted to time in (safe) possession.

Hocking and his team of nerdlingers were smart enough to bring Richmond undone, but not smart enough to avoid killing the sport.

Spot on Lee. The game as a spectacle this season is as bad as I’ve ever seen it. Total garbage. I don’t watch any games outside of Richmond games. It’s putrid.

That’s all on SHocking. He is a disgrace as are the AFL for letting him loose to ruin a great game.

 

[year of the tiger]

The weird thing about the chip mark stand game is that it is happening in some games and not others.

We are seeing games with well over 200 uncontested marks and other games with around 150, which is why the overall number of uncontested marks per game is only rising a bit. I don't have the stats but not sure how many games had so many uncontested marks in the past - were there more games near the average or just as many outliers?

DS

It will be interesting to see how the game is played during finals - the cats chip chip game works well in the H&A but is less effective during finals.

We may get our 1 wood back if we make the 8.

 

[Coburgtiger]

I think the truth probably lies half way between you and me.


probably I bit closer to me.

theres 10 footballers on every list in the AFL getting paid more than the PM,

who look like champions in a winning side, and limited in a losing side.

ours just accepted cabinet minister rates, and won 3 flags.

Maybe I'm spoiled by too many champions.

Look at Shed, for instance. Kicked two goals yesterday and we all kinda think, yeah.

He's a champion midfielder. 14 disposals, two goals, not even a talking point.

Imagine if George had done that. He'd have been in the best form of his career, everyone'd be saying 'He's back!' and he would be guaranteed another 20 games.

I've worn out my protractor looking at this from every angle, and I can't see any way in which MRJ is not a better option than Castagna. While CCJ is a better option than Aarts.

It's like a win-win-win-win-win.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

They are interesting numbers. We are only talking about one extra uncontested mark per team, per quarter so it is hard to see where the change comes from.

Stoppage numbers would be interesting, which would seem to be a link between all three of those areas, but it is hard to see a link between that an the standing on the mark rule. Perhaps the reduced rotations has had more impact than has been given credit.

Ball movement is more protracted, generally. There is more or less a full-ground zone employed - players bounce the ball 75% less than they did 15 years ago. That's been a trend rather than a sudden decline, but it all adds up.

Richmond eschewed stoppages and attempted to keep the ball in motion, forwards. We were the cause of jealousy rather than ugly footy.

 

[daniel30]

That first half was so bad how we could dish that up can't explain it been bit like that this year hot and cold and poor starts and poor finishes at times.Second half we looked different team.

 

[DavidSSS]

Average is 167 uncontested marks per game, highest outside the peak years of 2006-09.

How many in 2019 please LTRTR?

159

The interesting thing about this is that the 167 average is a fair increase from the average uncontested marks per game to the end of Round 19 which was about 161 from memory.

The other thing about this is that most games seem to be around the 167 uncontested marks per game, some at about 140, except there were a couple of games which really blew this out:
Collingwood v West Coast: 249 uncontested marks
North Melbourne v Geelong: 244 uncontested marks

It is very variable.

DS

PS: 214 uncontested marks in Richmond v North this week, that's high.

 

[Sintiger]

I have no idea why he would be seen as a better option in the 22 than Caddy

Parker must of read this post because he came out and played very well in the 2nd half

 

[Harry]

Average is 167 uncontested marks per game, highest outside the peak years of 2006-09. However the average score per game is 28 points lower than that period. Back then it was the fashion to run down the clock at the end of a quarter, but also to switch play. The footy was uncontested but typically end-to-end. This season is often just plain stagnant.

Contested possessions as a ratio of total possessions are at a 12-year low; tackles at a 13-year low, hit outs at a 13-year low. These point to less ball in dispute, which has been converted to time in (safe) possession.

Hocking and his team of nerdlingers were smart enough to bring Richmond undone, but not smart enough to avoid killing the sport.

Good post.

I'd also add -

Without having the stats and based on what I've noticed it seems there's alot more uncontested marks in the centre corridor and in the forward half than previously. Would be good to get a heat map of this.

We used to concede alot of uncontested marks as the opposition kicked sideways in their backline trying to switch the play and open us up. But once they couldn't progress they had no option but to bomb down the wings to a contest. Remember collingwood breaking the world record of uncontested marks once chipping sideways in their backline.

Uncontested marks now seem to be in more dangerous spots which opens us up and breaks down our defensive structures much quicker and easier. manning the mark aggressively gave our backline more time to structure up, which was part of our game that gave us a big edge and worked well with the rest of our game.