-
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.
PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
Ok I've been waiting to see if there was going to be thread about the coaching against the Saints and I've now decided to open up the topic myself.
Thought that the coaching panel made some bad decisions Saturday night.
1) To start with we changed Polak out for Jackson in before the game.
Given that the Saints have a smallish defence, with McGuire down on form and possibly knowing Hudgton would not play we leave out a marking forward replaced by a midfield tagger. Why? We went head to head with two of the better rated mids in Bulldogs and Hawks and the Bullies raved about our mids after the game. Foley said in a TV interview the next day that they decided to go "small" in attack by dropping Polak. Why give up a strength? No faith in the players?
2) Our game plan seemed to revert to the old failed ways.
Stop and chip sideways or handball back and outside to designated kickers in McMahon and Newman to kick down the boundary line. Noted this particularly in the third where White, I think, handballed back and outside to McMahon while two players were clear in the central corridor.
3) We smashed them in the midfield clearances but didn't seem to challenge them thru the corridor.
Maybe having very few (one part-time in Richo) big targets to kick to was a problem - see 1. In all the talk about the game this is not mentioned but to me was glaringly obvious (and also to my 84 year old mum watching the game at the same time).
4) Who were the tight defenders?
If McMahon and Newman were the designated kickers and King was allowed to run off his man, who minded the shop in case of turnovers. One free wheeling defender yes, but three.
5) Why weren't notorious non-chasers challenged?
May seem a contradiction in light of the previous point but Gehrig and Milne will rarely chase downfield. Noted in the first that Will, I think, ran Gehrig to HFF and took a cheap possession. At the time I thought "beauty that'll either blow up the fat slug, someone else will have to do his chasing or Lyon will pull him for not chasing". hardly noticed it again except for Kel in the last.
6) Strange matchups.
McGuane seemed to be on Gehrig for a lot of the game. Moore on Milne was just plain dumb. Milne got his goals from clever crumbing mostly, why put a less agile taller player on him? If Moore was sent to the forward line in the final quarter then that was dumb since McGuane is the back with the forward experience from juniors. I watched on TV in the country so maybe I missed a lot, but it seemed there were some positional moves that made me go "Huh". Did Deledio match up on Goddard? Given him a flogging in the past. Who played on Riewoldt? Cos it seemed to be many different tigers. I was always told that the coach should wherever possible give a player a job to do and have faith in him to do the job. We seemed to be changing the player on their only effective forward all the time.
The overall impression I got was that we should have flogged them, but the coaching staff gave away too much ground before and during the game by not having faith in the players.
A later thought occurred that maybe Wallace was making changes due to the Hawks game, not to beat a totally different team that was undermanned, out of form, injury struck and unable to come to terms with the coach's new plan. One that definately got away.
Also thought that the missing time gave Wallace the perfect chance to deflect the media away from his decisions.
Thought that the coaching panel made some bad decisions Saturday night.
1) To start with we changed Polak out for Jackson in before the game.
Given that the Saints have a smallish defence, with McGuire down on form and possibly knowing Hudgton would not play we leave out a marking forward replaced by a midfield tagger. Why? We went head to head with two of the better rated mids in Bulldogs and Hawks and the Bullies raved about our mids after the game. Foley said in a TV interview the next day that they decided to go "small" in attack by dropping Polak. Why give up a strength? No faith in the players?
2) Our game plan seemed to revert to the old failed ways.
Stop and chip sideways or handball back and outside to designated kickers in McMahon and Newman to kick down the boundary line. Noted this particularly in the third where White, I think, handballed back and outside to McMahon while two players were clear in the central corridor.
3) We smashed them in the midfield clearances but didn't seem to challenge them thru the corridor.
Maybe having very few (one part-time in Richo) big targets to kick to was a problem - see 1. In all the talk about the game this is not mentioned but to me was glaringly obvious (and also to my 84 year old mum watching the game at the same time).
4) Who were the tight defenders?
If McMahon and Newman were the designated kickers and King was allowed to run off his man, who minded the shop in case of turnovers. One free wheeling defender yes, but three.
5) Why weren't notorious non-chasers challenged?
May seem a contradiction in light of the previous point but Gehrig and Milne will rarely chase downfield. Noted in the first that Will, I think, ran Gehrig to HFF and took a cheap possession. At the time I thought "beauty that'll either blow up the fat slug, someone else will have to do his chasing or Lyon will pull him for not chasing". hardly noticed it again except for Kel in the last.
6) Strange matchups.
McGuane seemed to be on Gehrig for a lot of the game. Moore on Milne was just plain dumb. Milne got his goals from clever crumbing mostly, why put a less agile taller player on him? If Moore was sent to the forward line in the final quarter then that was dumb since McGuane is the back with the forward experience from juniors. I watched on TV in the country so maybe I missed a lot, but it seemed there were some positional moves that made me go "Huh". Did Deledio match up on Goddard? Given him a flogging in the past. Who played on Riewoldt? Cos it seemed to be many different tigers. I was always told that the coach should wherever possible give a player a job to do and have faith in him to do the job. We seemed to be changing the player on their only effective forward all the time.
The overall impression I got was that we should have flogged them, but the coaching staff gave away too much ground before and during the game by not having faith in the players.
A later thought occurred that maybe Wallace was making changes due to the Hawks game, not to beat a totally different team that was undermanned, out of form, injury struck and unable to come to terms with the coach's new plan. One that definately got away.
Also thought that the missing time gave Wallace the perfect chance to deflect the media away from his decisions.