-
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.
Fox Footy today @10am
- Thread starter BalmyArmy
- Start date
I am watching this game right now. A few things stand out:
- the ordinary Spud game plan that was to become severely exposed in the years to follow, is actually working here. However, the hand ball backwards, chipping around, stop start movement of the ball, missing of targets is apparent.
This is definitely a game played (and won) by desperation, but as we all know, you cannot have success based on this alone anymore.
- the ordinary Spud game plan that was to become severely exposed in the years to follow, is actually working here. However, the hand ball backwards, chipping around, stop start movement of the ball, missing of targets is apparent.
This is definitely a game played (and won) by desperation, but as we all know, you cannot have success based on this alone anymore.
The Mighty Wozman said:
My recollection of the game, and I've never watched a replay, is that Carlton fellinto Richmond's zoning defence completely.
Carlton chose the kick the ball long and high into our defence where our better marking players - Holland, Kellaway, Gaspar, Chaffey - would gain possession.
As I recall, it was a quick chip to Cameron, the Tiger Quarter-Back, who'd deliver the ball off to a forward option.
One of the positives of the Tigers stop start play was that it allowed defenders to sneak up the ground to kick the odd goal.
The negative was that it allowed a decent opposition to play a running game that would tear the Tigers apart. By the following season, most clubs had worked out that they merely had to run the Tigers off their feet, and stitch up the Tiger midfield by playing man-on-man.
A zone defence has never worked against a hard running/hard tackling opposition.
Shows you how bad Carlton were if we could beat them!
How many shots did they miss in the 3rd Qtr?
A low scoring scrap in fine weather that was a shocking example of Afl footy.
Names like Sziller, Bourke, King,....................Frawley.............................well that just about sums it up!
How many shots did they miss in the 3rd Qtr?
A low scoring scrap in fine weather that was a shocking example of Afl footy.
Names like Sziller, Bourke, King,....................Frawley.............................well that just about sums it up!
Phantom said:
Agree. Carlton in this game are obviously an ageing / slowing team and were manageable for the Tigers.... As you allude to, the pace and run of Brisbane definitely found the Tigers out. The 2001 game plan was a once off where everything went right. Unfortunately to try and persist witht this game plan (2002-2004) was easy for the opposition to counter and ludicrous from a RFC perspective.
It pains me too much to watch it.Yeah good win but the result had ramifications in which we still are paying for. 
CptJonno2Madcow2005 said:It pains me too much to watch it.Yeah good win but the result had ramifications in which we still are paying for.
Couldn't agree more. Even as a supporter I always thought we were miles off Brisbane/Essendon and even Port. It was definitely a year where alot went right - in particular, winning the close ones.... You only have to look at the standard of this game (albeit very windy) to realise that Houlihoop and Hudson were not going to bridge the gap.
People say hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I think that most of us here realised at the time that Richmond needed to get some more young runners/mdifieders who could kick.... what a waste of picks as these guys would be 22-23 now.
If you haven't watched a replay then take the tip and dont. It was bloody awful. Then again it was Carlton in a final and we did win 
Looking at it in the most positive light we out-tackled Carlton and they out-fumbled us(but only just). Our kicking was atrocious but fortunately our endeavour was great.
As Wozman posted above, it was one occasion where the Spud plan actually worked. I think he modelled it on the Italian army tank design i.e. 5 reverse gears and one forward gear. The latter apparently was to cover any rear-guard attack.
The consolation out of 2001 was that 13 sides still finished lower than us.
Looking at it in the most positive light we out-tackled Carlton and they out-fumbled us(but only just). Our kicking was atrocious but fortunately our endeavour was great.
As Wozman posted above, it was one occasion where the Spud plan actually worked. I think he modelled it on the Italian army tank design i.e. 5 reverse gears and one forward gear. The latter apparently was to cover any rear-guard attack.
The consolation out of 2001 was that 13 sides still finished lower than us.
Yeah, I remember 2001 as a year where we somehow managed to beat teams by grinding them down to our (woeful) level with pure endeveaour. Not pretty to watch. I wasn't at all surprised at 2002 because I thought we so massively over achieved the previous year. Why didn't the coaches notice this too!!
I wonder what our greatest winning margin was that year? As I remember it we only used to beat teams by about 20 points - and that was a big win!!
I wonder what our greatest winning margin was that year? As I remember it we only used to beat teams by about 20 points - and that was a big win!!
Redford said:CptJonno2Madcow2005 said:It pains me too much to watch it.Yeah good win but the result had ramifications in which we still are paying for.
That's an interesting point. Did that game cost us ?
Not really. Blind stupid faith and gross player over-rating by a coach and his panel was what cost us.
jb03 said:Redford said:CptJonno2Madcow2005 said:It pains me too much to watch it.Yeah good win but the result had ramifications in which we still are paying for.
That's an interesting point. Did that game cost us ?
Not really. Blind stupid faith and gross player over-rating by a coach and his panel was what cost us.
So, if I am reading you right, then not so much that game per se, but rather a longer build up of "stupid faith" and "over-rating" over a period of time ? That's to say, the game was just an unfortunate outcome that accelerated or inflamed those false perceptions ? I can see that, if that's what you are saying.
Redford said:jb03 said:Redford said:CptJonno2Madcow2005 said:It pains me too much to watch it.Yeah good win but the result had ramifications in which we still are paying for.
That's an interesting point. Did that game cost us ?
Not really. Blind stupid faith and gross player over-rating by a coach and his panel was what cost us.
So, if I am reading you right, then not so much that game per se, but rather a longer build up of "stupid faith" and "over-rating" over a period of time ? That's to say, the game was just an unfortunate outcome that accelerated or inflamed those false perceptions ? I can see that, if that's what you are saying.
Yes, correct. ONe would have thought the pounding from Brisbane the following week would have knocked some sense into the coaching panel and give them a 'reality check.' I guess they thought the 2001 draft was going to be a weak one. They were right - weren't they? ;D
jb03 said:Redford said:jb03 said:Redford said:CptJonno2Madcow2005 said:It pains me too much to watch it.Yeah good win but the result had ramifications in which we still are paying for.
That's an interesting point. Did that game cost us ?
Not really. Blind stupid faith and gross player over-rating by a coach and his panel was what cost us.
So, if I am reading you right, then not so much that game per se, but rather a longer build up of "stupid faith" and "over-rating" over a period of time ? That's to say, the game was just an unfortunate outcome that accelerated or inflamed those false perceptions ? I can see that, if that's what you are saying.
Yes, correct. ONe would have thought the pounding from Brisbane the following week would have knocked some sense into the coaching panel and give them a 'reality check.' I guess they thought the 2001 draft was going to be a weak one. They were right - weren't they? ;D
Yeah. I remember watching that prelim game and thinking afterwards "Thank God" that if we were gonna lose that game, we lost it in such a fashion that it showed up our weaknesses and we wouldn't fall subject to false perceptions of where we were at as a club.
Unfortunately, we had a deluded coaching panel that couldn't see past that year and committed itself to that false perception.
Ahh yes the Brisbane game. Here a few observations I had last nite
-Greg Tivendale kicks the first two, the second a absolute bomb from about 55 that goes 65 on the run. Just a amazing kick on the run, makes think why we hasn't done it since. That's because he played on a wing this game and the next few years we tried to turn him into a back man.
-Benny Holland was much more mobile then I ever thought. He is one guy who really put on too much weight and lost all mobility.
-Ezra Poyas, what was all that about. He had to wake up out of a deep sleep to have a snooze.
-Leon Cameron was one of the smartest footballers going around.
-Joel Bowden looks chubby, don't want to sound like a female but his backside looks huge.
-Brad Ottens body most be shot, he too locked ten times more mobile then the 2005 model.
-Spud looked like a deer in headlights in the box at some points.
-We still couldn't kick the ball to Richo.
-In all honesty I cannot understand after that thumping how those in charge thought we were only a small forward away from making the leap.
If the Richmond Football Club in 2004 is early man the 2001 model is clearly the ape we evolved from.
-Greg Tivendale kicks the first two, the second a absolute bomb from about 55 that goes 65 on the run. Just a amazing kick on the run, makes think why we hasn't done it since. That's because he played on a wing this game and the next few years we tried to turn him into a back man.
-Benny Holland was much more mobile then I ever thought. He is one guy who really put on too much weight and lost all mobility.
-Ezra Poyas, what was all that about. He had to wake up out of a deep sleep to have a snooze.
-Leon Cameron was one of the smartest footballers going around.
-Joel Bowden looks chubby, don't want to sound like a female but his backside looks huge.
-Brad Ottens body most be shot, he too locked ten times more mobile then the 2005 model.
-Spud looked like a deer in headlights in the box at some points.
-We still couldn't kick the ball to Richo.
-In all honesty I cannot understand after that thumping how those in charge thought we were only a small forward away from making the leap.
If the Richmond Football Club in 2004 is early man the 2001 model is clearly the ape we evolved from.
Other observations from the 2001 Pre-liminary:
- Tivendale looked quick and kicked the ball long - low projectory.
- Muppet Arms - looked the weakest I have ever seen him
- The physicality of the Carlton game was sorely missed - probably due to no wind; and a far superior/quicker team - therefore, didn't have the chance to bring the game down to our standard.
- Poyas - another pick in the early 20s that went nowhere - way too slow.
- Turnovers were very costly.
- The small forward was the least of our problems. The Lions demonstarted that you needed a plethora of players running through the midfield. We did not learn from this obvious lesson.
- Tivendale looked quick and kicked the ball long - low projectory.
- Muppet Arms - looked the weakest I have ever seen him
- The physicality of the Carlton game was sorely missed - probably due to no wind; and a far superior/quicker team - therefore, didn't have the chance to bring the game down to our standard.
- Poyas - another pick in the early 20s that went nowhere - way too slow.
- Turnovers were very costly.
- The small forward was the least of our problems. The Lions demonstarted that you needed a plethora of players running through the midfield. We did not learn from this obvious lesson.