Changes v Bombers | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Changes v Bombers

Big Cat Lover said:
Can't see nor agree with 3 ruckman and Simmonds so poorly out of form no use at FF. Real mobility issues ATM so has to be dropped. Also, bombers leg speed means no chance of 3 ruckman. Would prefer Browne to get some experience rather than Simmonds plod around.

Am afraid we may be forced to play Schulz at FF. Who else is there? Post?

Agree with the back half and centreline.

Brown was instrumental in the comeback and showed some application so will not be dropped.

OUT - Simmonds/Raines/Pettifer/Cousins/Polo
IN - Thursfield/Reiwoldt/Browne/Schulz/Connors
Click to expand...
just a team i would like to see considering injuries.
i thought simmonds gave us a bit the week before against brisbane. in all honesty all ruckmen struggled in the wet this week. port went in with lade and brogan and they were almost strictly used one on the ground, one on the bench. they got 101 minutes between them. they had limited possesions 11 between them.
we played graham and simmonds for a combined 132 minutes for a total 14 possesions between them. the rain basically made it very hard for any of them to have an impact.
we played ours longer because we went into the game with no talls.

i would go graham and browne should be the ruckmen, changing on the bench. simmonds should be the permanent ff, if this does not work and it makes us to top heavy the option is to rotate all three thru the bench and in the ruck. clearly if we want more run off the bench one has to go.

jayden post is a lovely mover i dont think we would lose much run in playing him hes also a powerful mark. jack needs to be roaming around as well is also very good in the air. to me the problem is not the talls its the players around them play morton and brown and we have troubles as far as defnsive pressure accountability and work rate goes. pop pettifer in there as well and its diabolical.
the mobility question you raised is legit and perhaps as you suggest schulz at ff riewoldt to chf and post on a flank. simmonds out.with these changes perhaps we go something like this.

b/ hocking 21 187/91 pears 19 191/91 slattery 23 185/86
f/ morton 22 186/80 schulz 24 193/95 connors 20 184/82

hb/ dempsey 21 186/82 hooker 20 196/93 mcphee 26 190/89
hf/ nahas 21 176/67 riewoldt 20 193/87 post 19 194/88

c/ zarahakis 19 182/76 stanton 23 182/82 winderlich 24 188/83
c/ collins 20 186/78 coughlan 27 185/85 cotchin 19 185/84

hf/ monfries 22 184/80 lovett-m 26 190/85 lonergan 22 182/80
hb/ newman 27 183/81 moore 25 189/84 deledio 22 188/88

f/ llloyd 31 192/93 neagle 21 191/100 davey 25 173/70
b/ mcguane 22 191/86 thursfield 23 191/85 tambling 22 180/81

r/ ryder 21 197/90 watson 24 190/91 lovett 26 183/74
r graham 22 201/100 jackson 23 188/90 foley 23 178/80

int/ bellchambers 19 201/102 dyson 23 182/82 myers 19 190/86 houli 21 180/83 jetta 20 178/75. nash 23 188/84
int/ browne 18 205/105 tuck 27 189/90 white 22 179/81 brown 31 181/80 thomson 22 184/84, polo 22 187/83
thats it for me players ages height weight in the main pretty even right across the board.
it only leaves skills pace system and hunger.
the one that stands out is they have a big size advantage with their two key forwards lloyd and neagle i suppose schulz could go back if one of them gets hold of us like tredrea did.
 
Phantom said:
B: Moore, Thursfield, Newman
F: Neagle, Lloyd, Davey
HB: Polo, Schulz, White
HF: Monfries, McPhee, Lonergan
C: Coughlan, Foley, Collins
C: Houli, Lovett, Winderlich
HF: Deledio, Pattison/Vickery, Brown
HB: Dempsey, Hooker, Lovett-Murray
F: Morton, Reiwoldt, Nahas
B: Dyson, Pears, H.Slattery

R: Graham, Jackson, Tambling
R: Ryder, Watson, Hocking

I: Pettifer, Cotchin, Tuck, McGuane/Bowden
I: Bellchambers, Myers, Zaharakis, Stanton

Meh!!!
So many flankers, so few genuine KPPs.
Click to expand...

Whats with the Bombers being in red & white?
 
Looks really good claw. I might swap Thursfield and McGuane around but other than that I hope you're on the money.
 
I agree It's a good side demonstrating good balance but very surprised you have included Schulz given your many posts about his deficiencies. I would love to see Schulz play a whole game at ff.
 
i haven't heard that they have done much yet, but with the young backline of the bombers, and the crowd, it would be an ideal opportunity to blood a vickery or post

cuz to play would be fantastic
 
the claw said:
just a team i would like to see considering injuries.
i thought simmonds gave us a bit the week before against brisbane. in all honesty all ruckmen struggled in the wet this week. port went in with lade and brogan and they were almost strictly used one on the ground, one on the bench. they got 101 minutes between them. they had limited possesions 11 between them.
we played graham and simmonds for a combined 132 minutes for a total 14 possesions between them. the rain basically made it very hard for any of them to have an impact.
we played ours longer because we went into the game with no talls.

i would go graham and browne should be the ruckmen, changing on the bench. simmonds should be the permanent ff, if this does not work and it makes us to top heavy the option is to rotate all three thru the bench and in the ruck. clearly if we want more run off the bench one has to go.

jayden post is a lovely mover i dont think we would lose much run in playing him hes also a powerful mark. jack needs to be roaming around as well is also very good in the air. to me the problem is not the talls its the players around them play morton and brown and we have troubles as far as defnsive pressure accountability and work rate goes. pop pettifer in there as well and its diabolical.
the mobility question you raised is legit and perhaps as you suggest schulz at ff riewoldt to chf and post on a flank. simmonds out.with these changes perhaps we go something like this.

b/ hocking 21 187/91 pears 19 191/91 slattery 23 185/86
f/ morton 22 186/80 schulz 24 193/95 connors 20 184/82

hb/ dempsey 21 186/82 hooker 20 196/93 mcphee 26 190/89
hf/ nahas 21 176/67 riewoldt 20 193/87 post 19 194/88

c/ zarahakis 19 182/76 stanton 23 182/82 winderlich 24 188/83
c/ collins 20 186/78 coughlan 27 185/85 cotchin 19 185/84

hf/ monfries 22 184/80 lovett-m 26 190/85 lonergan 22 182/80
hb/ newman 27 183/81 moore 25 189/84 deledio 22 188/88

f/ llloyd 31 192/93 neagle 21 191/100 davey 25 173/70
b/ mcguane 22 191/86 thursfield 23 191/85 tambling 22 180/81

r/ ryder 21 197/90 watson 24 190/91 lovett 26 183/74
r graham 22 201/100 jackson 23 188/90 foley 23 178/80

int/ bellchambers 19 201/102 dyson 23 182/82 myers 19 190/86 houli 21 180/83 jetta 20 178/75. nash 23 188/84
int/ browne 18 205/105 tuck 27 189/90 white 22 179/81 brown 31 181/80 thomson 22 184/84, polo 22 187/83
thats it for me players ages height weight in the main pretty even right across the board.
it only leaves skills pace system and hunger.
the one that stands out is they have a big size advantage with their two key forwards lloyd and neagle i suppose schulz could go back if one of them gets hold of us like tredrea did.
Click to expand...
Oh dear Claw,Shultz in?What will Craig say!
 
willo said:
Wasn't Browne only elevated while Pettifer was on the LTIL?
Click to expand...
.

Yep as far as Im aware Browne cant play. Which brings up an interesting point. With Johnson coming off the LTIL soon, what happens to Nahas? Or will they retire Johnson as injured? Or put Richo on LTIL?
 
GoodOne said:
.

Yep as far as Im aware Browne cant play. Which brings up an interesting point. With Johnson coming off the LTIL soon, what happens to Nahas? Or will they retire Johnson as injured? Or put Richo on LTIL?
Click to expand...

On the Richmond site. It said that Richo was on the LTIL.
 
ILuvLids said:
On the Richmond site. It said that Richo was on the LTIL.
Click to expand...

The rookie concession also kicks in soon....each club can nominate one rookie to be automatically upgraded to the senior list or something like that.
 
gold1 said:
Oh dear Claw,Shultz in?What will Craig say!
Click to expand...
what other option do we have. its schulz or hughes thats itpeople either that or play simmonds out of the square. to be honest if polak was fit i would play him if gourdis was on the list proper i would give him a go.if pattison could mark id give him a go.sheesh 5 names and they should all be delisted.
post and riewoldt should play but im not about throwing them to the wolves you need a big body who can take some heat of them the only real option we have is schulz sort of tells ya where the list is at.

one other thing if our skinny undersized kpds get killed like last week at least schulz can be swung back to try and stop the damage would match up well on neagle.
perhaps terry could think outside the square and say try mcguane at ff if schulz had to go back.

please tell me in matching up with the opposition which player would you bring into the team as a third tall option.
at least if schulz were to give us something and thats a big if, he would also give us flexability.i dont like it but i see no other option.

if i were to go into full on tank mode you would have a team to complain about then. the team ive selected i believe gives us the best possible chance to win the game while still looking to the future. it matches up well against essendon for height size age structure flexability and it caters to development.

personally i dont think theres to many you could bring into that team cousins rance richo thats about it. in moving forward or looking at the next couple of seasons that is the future schulz aside. you can probably add a few of the kids vickery, pick 2 this yr but thats about it.
 
As much as I don't particularly like *smile* as many of us dont, he has to play this game and probably a few more besides.

That means the Richmond "Game Plan" (that stupid chip shot, handball around the HB area for an hour has to go), becomes LONG AND DIRECT.

*smile* is not a fast player, he needs a bit of space and he needs to lead straight up the middle. Riewoldt at CHF, for this game he needs to use his leap, so again the Tigers must play long and direct, with Morton and Brown both manning up their respective defenders, to stop a Tiger forward being outnumbered by the defence.

For *smile* to continue playing, it means he has to average I'd say 3 goals per game, the more goals the better. For that to happen he has to get at least 6 marks inside the 50. If the players can do that and noting that Ben Cousins brilliant passing is not available, then *smile* may just have a chance.

That said, its up to *smile* and its up to the other Tiger Players. Given all the crap that has flown around Punt Road this week, if I was a player I'd be so damn angry and so motivated to take out the frustration on the oppostion it wouldn't be funny.
A bit of aggo correctly directed, players that are fired up, coaching staff that finally see the light and go up the middle long and direct etc, that will go along way to winning this game and other games this season.

Now having said my piece, I expect the Tigers to do their usual 15 minutes of hard work, then pack it in and cop a flogging, or the coaching staff will ensure a loss by selecting a team designed to tank (lose), and this week will just seem like any other just a bit worse with the HUN gloating all over the place for good measure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
< Please Richmond win the next two | Bring on Saturday.. I'm over all this >
Top Bottom