Lot of talk about a territory game over the last few years. You get the ball towards your goal and lock it in there until you can create an opportunity to score. Makes for a slower game but helps teams who can gain territory and defend territory. We were the best at this because we would just move the ball forward any way we could - taps, handballs, kicks, whatever, then set up behind the ball while trying to lock it in our forward line.
The new rules seem to have made space which means territory is much harder to defend. There is enough space to get out with short kicks and once there is space, there is space to run. In the past few years look at how hard it was for opposition teams to get that short switch across the ground - how many times did we see Richmond intercept these? The long switch right across the backline has had some effect on us over the last few years but it takes long enough to give time for the defence to set up.
The more open play has made centre clearances and contested possessions more important and we clearly need to work on these. Look at Melbourne, they are winning clearances and contested ball, plus, they always have an outlet, there is always someone waiting for the ball and a couple more to get the outnumber and the overlap possessions. It is a hard game to play fitness wise but if you can pull it off it is very effective.
I don't watch many games other than our own but I have noticed that when teams get a run on they score quickly. Last night was a perfect example. We were seemingly powerless to stop Essendon once they got going, we barely got a possession and goals were impossible to stop, the same applied the other way when we wrested control. I'd need to watch a replay (which I don't do) to see how we got control back.
But the question is, how are teams like Melbourne, who have the lowest points against at the moment, stopping scoring by the opposition when the opposition is in control? I suspect everyone is looking at what they do and trying to work it all out. It would be interesting to see their defensive structures as we seem to get scored against whenever the ball goes behind a pack in our defensive 50, do Melbourne just have more players back there?
I also think we need another tall back now, teams are playing more tall marking forwards and our defence is too short at the moment.
As for the rules, I think there is certainly a dislike of Richmond amongst f***heads like SHocking. But, if you look at the game and decide it needs to open up, you look at the champs to see the most effective version of bottling up the game. Any rule change is going to disadvantage the team which is the best at playing under the existing rules. The biggest problem with the rule changes is that they try and confect a particular outcome and do so in ways that change the nature of the game. I still oppose 6-6-6 because the only restriction on movement in Australian Football has been the centre square up to now - it is a fundamental of Australian Football that there are no restrictions on player positioning, in short, we have no off side. It makes the game what it is. The player standing on the mark and unable to move is more about creating an outnumber for the attacking side, it takes a player out of the equation for the team without the ball, it is a confected way to advantage attack. Plus, the statue on the mark is open to interpretation which is a killer of consistent adjudication. The difference between an umpire calling stand or not is big, the decision of an umpire to call a player back to kick over the mark can be crucial - there was one last night when the umpire called advantage but Essendon wanted the ball back, yet when the Essendon player got the ball back he wasn't called to get behind the mark - if the player taking the kick is protected, and, allowed to play on from a position not behind the mark, it is an unfair advantage. Yet again inconsistent application of the rules (which are too vague and open to interpretation) provides for inconsistent advantage, and the advantage is skewed to help attack as that is what the AFL wants.
Richmond are starting to adapt but it won't be simple because we have a particular group of players who suit the territory game, it is part of the reason why we tend to be shorter than the opposition. I would go taller because we need to open up the forward line and that can be done by having multiple targets spreading when the ball comes in. We also need more height in defence as we concede too many marks in our defence. But sacrificing speed is also problematic. The balance has shifted and getting it just right takes some doing.
DS
