ABC article. How to stop The Tigers

[pete and tys]

This article on the ABC site today confirms that other sides have established how to beat Richmonds game style.
A good read, nothing new, but confirmation that we have been worked out and successfully so by the better teams.
It's ugly but to beat us it is what is required.
Not sure of the answer but I can think of a few things...

The larger the ground the better for us.
Rapid ball movement is imperative.
More risk taking needed but with that goes a risk of turnover.
Possibly a taller side to take the long option when needed...ie two rucks , and perhaps a tall in the full forward line for the long kick. Maybe rest the ruck there and forego a small....they are becoming obsolete now ..see returns of Rioli and George.
More leadup forward options ? Markov.
Maybe more emphasis on winning the contested stoppage which we have not prioritised recently...hard until the troops are back.

In the Swans game I noticed we kicked to the pockets trying to force a stoppage to reset, but the crowds made it unsuccessful...this also reduced the risk of Swan slingshot. May just have to take the risk and attack the top of the square more often. We do have Lynch and JR!

 

[Baloo]

Short should be moved to the edge of the square with instructions to roam a couple of metres behind play. We should just feed to Short who takes a shot for long range. Not sure who else has that distance as part of their arsenal, but we should just kick over the quagmire.

If it drops short then we've got Lynch who is bound to clunk one or two. Jack good for one. And one of the smalls has to have a good day

 

[BrisTiger24]

Short, Dusty, Balta are weapons against this ploy. They can all kick goals from well outside 50

 

[zippadeee]

Short, Dusty, Balta are weapons against this ploy. They can all kick goals from well outside 50

And Pickett can hit the satellites
That's a huge weapon too.

 

[zippadeee]

Short should be moved to the edge of the square with instructions to roam a couple of metres behind play. We should just feed to Short who takes a shot for long range. Not sure who else has that distance as part of their arsenal, but we should just kick over the quagmire.

If it drops short then we've got Lynch who is bound to clunk one or two. Jack good for one. And one of the smalls has to have a good day

I like to feed Short a one way ticket back home.

 

[pete and tys]

There you go. ..both have the same thought.
Win the contested ball our side of centre and give to the outside long kicker...makes some sense.
I like it. Means Balta and Short have to be freed from the backline....can be done.
At least go to the top of the square if too far out. Talls should be expecting it coming in. Might be something that suots CCJ in the forward pocket.
Clearly we need some lateral thinking because I can't see an easy way out now teams have a blueprint.

 

[Tigers of Old]

It is actually refreshing to see an article like this.

Dimma & co. definitely need a plan B..

 

[Quickdraw]

Short, Dusty, Balta are weapons against this ploy. They can all kick goals from well outside 50

Vlas can kick a long goal too.

 

[DavidSSS]

It is clearly a problem. Exacerbated by the short quarters too.

I think if we were playing better it would reduce the problem but not remove the problem.

Clearly some strategic changes need to be made and I think one of them is going to have to be becoming more competitive at clearances, especially centre clearances. Relying on turnovers to score fits with what the stats tell us but I think we are seeing the fact that this strategy does have flaws which allow it to be nullified.

Not convinced trying to kick goals from 50m out is viable, although doing this some of the time would hopefully break up the flood to some extent.

Time to sort out some alternate strategies so we have more weapons to score.

DS

 

[Harry]

Figured us out? Don't think so. Our intensity and pressure is no where near where it can be, where it should be. Our numbers to the ball is severely lacking. No swarming, running in numbers, link up through the middle. No game plan can counter us when this is up and running. For some reason we are going away from what makes us great. We are losing contests because we don't have that extra player or 2 providing support to the ball carrier. Teams are breaking through us because we are lacking the extra player or 2 to lay the decisive tackle. The rest that occurs around the ground is a result of this.

Our game plan is pretty simple. Sure we set up well defensively around the ground, but our movement forward is pretty basic. Break through the middle quickly with numbers and link up and get it into F50 quickly where jack and tom either mark or the small forwards apply pressure on the crumbs. This is why coaches like fagan and scott scratch their heads when we slap them.

 

[MD Jazz]

Figured us out? Don't think so. Our intensity and pressure is no where near where it can be, where it should be. Our numbers to the ball is severely lacking. No swarming, running in numbers, link up through the middle. No game plan can counter us when this is up and running. For some reason we are going away from what makes us great. We are losing contests because we don't have that extra player or 2 providing support to the ball carrier. Teams are breaking through us because we are lacking the extra player or 2 to lay the decisive tackle. The rest that occurs around the ground is a result of this.

Yeh, we've played the same way for 3 + years, not sure this is some eureka moment. We've really dropped off in terms of connection, those deft taps, touches and handballs are missing their targets. Our skills are off. More game time will see that cohesion return. And agree it won't matter what the opposition do when we click again.

 

[Eric]

While it was a shocker of a game on the weekend i think the thing which has been overlooked in the hysteria is that (not for the first time this year) we kicked badly for goal. 4 goals 10 could have easily been 8 goals 6 and a reasonable score in wet weather and reduced quarters and reflective of the advantage we had over the swans in general play.

No doubt our delivery forward was too slow allowing the swans to get back and the few times we did go quickly with handball chains through the middle we fumbled (as we seem to have all season). Having said that with the exception of Lynch none of our forwards have even threatened to take a game away from another team since the Carlton game and we are working much harder for our goals. Our forward pressure is non-existent (ranked 18th for tackles inside 50). Time for McRae to earn his keep as forwards coach and get them clicking.

 

[tigertim]

While it was a shocker of a game on the weekend i think the thing which has been overlooked in the hysteria is that (not for the first time this year) we kicked badly for goal. 4 goals 10 could have easily been 8 goals 6 and a reasonable score in wet weather and reduced quarters and reflective of the advantage we had over the swans in general play.

Just to be pedantic for a second, scoring shots at goal was 4.8 (and Sydney rushed 2 ).

But yes, even in these12 shots we kicked badly especially early in that first quarter when it was still dry. Those 3 misses then by Soldo and (can’t remember the other 2, Jack and Shai?) were very kickable. We coulda been 6.0 at qrt time.

 

[Eric]

Just to be pedantic for a second, scoring shots at goal was 4.8 (and Sydney rushed 2 ).

But yes, even in these12 shots we kicked badly especially early in that first quarter when it was still dry. Those 3 misses then by Soldo and (can’t remember the other 2, Jack and Shai?) were very kickable. We coulda been 6.0 at qrt time.

Chol was one who hit the post. Lynch missed a sitter from directly in front down the other end in the second quarter too

 

[yandb]

This article on the ABC site today confirms that other sides have established how to beat Richmonds game style.
A good read, nothing new, but confirmation that we have been worked out and successfully so by the better teams.
It's ugly but to beat us it is what is required.
Not sure of the answer but I can think of a few things...

The larger the ground the better for us.
Rapid ball movement is imperative.
More risk taking needed but with that goes a risk of turnover.
Possibly a taller side to take the long option when needed...ie two rucks , and perhaps a tall in the full forward line for the long kick. Maybe rest the ruck there and forego a small....they are becoming obsolete now ..see returns of Rioli and George.
More leadup forward options ? Markov.
Maybe more emphasis on winning the contested stoppage which we have not prioritised recently...hard until the troops are back.

In the Swans game I noticed we kicked to the pockets trying to force a stoppage to reset, but the crowds made it unsuccessful...this also reduced the risk of Swan slingshot. May just have to take the risk and attack the top of the square more often. We do have Lynch and JR!

Surely you jest, Jack hasn't looked like getting a kick since we came back and on the odd occasion he has got one his kicking skills have deserted him.

 

[jb03]

Figured us out? Don't think so. Our intensity and pressure is no where near where it can be, where it should be. Our numbers to the ball is severely lacking. No swarming, running in numbers, link up through the middle. No game plan can counter us when this is up and running. For some reason we are going away from what makes us great. We are losing contests because we don't have that extra player or 2 providing support to the ball carrier. Teams are breaking through us because we are lacking the extra player or 2 to lay the decisive tackle. The rest that occurs around the ground is a result of this.

Our game plan is pretty simple. Sure we set up well defensively around the ground, but our movement forward is pretty basic. Break through the middle quickly with numbers and link up and get it into F50 quickly where jack and tom either mark or the small forwards apply pressure on the crumbs. This is why coaches like fagan and scott scratch their heads when we slap them.

Yeah agree, not convinced. We are down on personnel and down on intensity.

 

[Ice]

A problem with the Sydney tactic is that while it keeps you in the game, you still have to attack at some point to win a game.
If other clubs try this tactic I would expect us to win 80% of our games, but it will be ugly, low scoring affairs.

 

[jb03]

The other thing of course is that Rance is gone, Reiwoldt is passed his best, Martin seems a little disinteresed so our list isn't quite as good as it has been in recent years. All good teams decline, and not necessarily because they have been "worked out".

 

[tigerman]

When transitioning out of defence have Dusty and Lynch deep forward, Balta on one wing and Riewoldt leading up on the other wing/flank and they won’t know which way we went.

 

[TigerFlag2017]

A problem with the Sydney tactic is that while it keeps you in the game, you still have to attack at some point to win a game.
If other clubs try this tactic I would expect us to win 80% of our games, but it will be ugly, low scoring affairs.

They copied exactly what Hawthorn did, however Hawthorn had the foot skills (and intent) to tear us open. Sydney had a bunch of inexperienced kids not yet ready to counter-attack.

It is a big problem and we need to quickly adapt.

Huge game this week, need to bank these wins against minnows and stay in touch with the eight.