Is Wallace Right?

[AstuteTiger]

Inexperience is also a pretty lame excuse, Collingwood have really bought on the likes of Clarke, Goldsack, Thomas and Pendlebury. Geelong have a younger team than us, yet they are light years ahead.

Difference is TM, our 23-28 yr olds do not stack up to geelongs or the pies hence why it then falls back to our younger guys who in all honestly are still finding their way. Once they mature watch out, thats what im trying to convey...

You have ur opinion i have mine, as GPB said lets wait and see...

 

[Tambling Man]

Admittedly the figures are simplistic as there is no measure of effectiveness, but if anything they show there is no "right" way to win a flag. Sydney certainly did it differently in 2005.

I reckon TW is basing his gameplan on the Port:-some amazing stats there, I'm even more surprised by their stats than Sydney's. Check out their 1%'s

 

[Tambling Man]

Inexperience is also a pretty lame excuse, Collingwood have really bought on the likes of Clarke, Goldsack, Thomas and Pendlebury. Geelong have a younger team than us, yet they are light years ahead.

Difference is TM, our 23-28 yr olds do not stack up to geelongs or the pies hence why it then falls back to our younger guys who in all honestly are still finding their way. Once they mature watch out, thats what im trying to convey...
...

When looking from that angle I guess there is light at the end of the tunnel. There isn't a lot we can do about it anyway. I hope you tell me "I told you so" in two years.

 

[Disco08]

I reckon TW is basing his gameplan on the Port:-some amazing stats there, I'm even more surprised by their stats than Sydney's. Check out their 1%'s

Yeah pretty amazing. Though they did have the most disposals and the second least errors and were also mid table on the HBG stats so I guess getting an even share of the ball and using it incredibly well can win you a flag. How far off achieving either of those for a whole year are we?

 

[TOT70]

Is it lack of maturity which will be addressed as the younger players grow into their bodies? Maybe. If it is, there will be plenty of improvement in this list over the next couple of years.

Is it a deeper problem because the coach doesn't emphasise this side of it enough? If that is the case, Wallace won't be coaching for much longer.

One thing you haven't reflected in the history is the improved fitness of players and their ability to flood either end of the ground whenever the play is held up. Unless your team is both skilled at winning the ball and at creating turnovers through pressure on the other team (as Geelong was this year) then your runners are going to have very limited opportunities.

I think the problem is clearly that Wallace doesn't put enough emphasis on tackling and pressure. His Bulldogs teams in 2000-2002 were all last in the league in tackling. Not until Eade came in did they suddenly lift this area of their game. The same can be said of Richmond under Wallace. Last in tackling and 1%ers every year and by a considerable margin (30-40%). If you're not tackling and not putting pressure on the opposition you're not creating turnovers which in the days of flooding is obviously one of the best ways to get yourself a bit of space and a shot at goal.

Yeah, fair point, Disco. It is the overall lack of pressure that is holding the team back. The question is, if it is due to youth (immature bodies) it will fix itself over time. If it is due to lack of emphasis it never will.

Some of our more skilful players are barely 20. They do need time to develop.

 

[Col.E.Kurtz]

The following are the rankings of premiers in various statistical categories since 2000 after the h&a rounds, according to Pro-Stats. Columns are disposals, kicks, long kicks, marks, contested marks, handballs, tackles, goals, behinds, frees for, frees against, hit outs, first possessions, clearances, inside 50s, rebound 50s, contested possessions, uncontested possessions, one-percenters, errors, bounces.

Year Cb D K LK M CM H T G B FF FA HO FP C I50 R50 CP UP 1% E B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 Es 1 4 12 6 6 1 4 2 2 13 7 4 2 1 3 16 1 1 4 8 16
2001 Br 4 11 15 10 11 3 1 2 1 16 8 5 3 3 3 11 6 3 2 12 4
2002 Br 5 2 6 3 6 9 3 1 1 13 5 5 11 7 1 11 9 6 1 15 3
2003 Br 3 5 14 5 9 5 4 2 6 13 15 7 9 4 1 8 9 3 7 16 5
2004 PA 1 6 15 1 2 1 14 3 6 9 10 5 9 10 8 4 11 1 16 15 2
2005 Sy 14 16 14 15 8 12 5 14 9 7 1 3 1 1 13 15 3 14 8 2 14
2006 WC 2 10 5 14 13 2 8 8 4 8 8 3 8 4 7 11 13 2 7 6 1
2007 Ge 1 3 13 7 1 2 7 1 1 2 9 2 2 2 1 8 1 2 2 5 8

2007 Ri 9 10 9 2 9 10 16 11 14 15 8 16 15 13 15 6 14 6 16 12 1

Admittedly the figures are simplistic as there is no measure of effectiveness, but if anything they show there is no "right" way to win a flag. Sydney certainly did it differently in 2005.

okay it's simplifying things, but the PA premiership does seem to indicate tackles, 1% and even clearances are not unnecessarily vital for premiership success. What is interesting is how few long kicks the winning clubs have

 

[TOT70]

Is the Sydney premiership a historical anomaly?

They dominated clearances and ruck duels, won first possession of the ball but had relatively less of it than their opposition. They didn't score much and were mid-table to lower table in most other areas.

Were they just in the right place at the right time? Do they owe their flag to Nick Davis pulling one out of his hat against the Cats and a very lucky (?????) night at the tribunal a week or so later?

Maybe they just weren't the best team that year, it happens.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Is the Sydney premiership a historical anomaly?

They dominated clearances and ruck duels, won first possession of the ball but had relatively less of it than their opposition. They didn't score much and were mid-table to lower table in most other areas.

Were they just in the right place at the right time? Do they owe their flag to Nick Davis pulling one out of his hat against the Cats and a very lucky (?????) night at the tribunal a week or so later?

Maybe they just weren't the best team that year, it happens.

Part of the reason they rate poorly in so many categories is that they slowed everything down by forcing a lot of stoppages etc, thereby having less chance to earn stats. I think Roos is a brilliant coach, but he is now running the club into the ground by not developing young players.

 

[Disco08]

Some of our more skilful players are barely 20. They do need time to develop.

Yeah I totally agree. We won't really know exactly what we've got even from the 2004 draft for another year or two.

What we can see though is what type of list Wallace is building and that's what isn't filling me with confidence. It seems like a fairly lopsided approach to building a team. Like I said I can see the value of speed and run & carry but I think it's obvious that you have to balance it out with at least average performances in other areas. I also think his past team's stats and Richmond's recent use of the draft system are both pretty decent indicators that Wallace doesn't agree.

 

[evo]

Paralysis by analysis.

Theres no big secret to it.Win your fair share of footy and make sure you dispose of it properly to a team mate.

We need people who can put their head over the ball and kick straight.Its that bleeding simple.

 

[Disco08]

I don't think there's too much disagreement as to what we all would like to see, much along those lines. The question is do you think Wallace's plan of run and carry and speedy flankers over everything else has any chance of succeeding?

 

[Col.E.Kurtz]

I reckon TW is basing his gameplan on the Port:-some amazing stats there, I'm even more surprised by their stats than Sydney's. Check out their 1%'s

Yeah pretty amazing. Though they did have the most disposals and the second least errors and were also mid table on the HBG stats so I guess getting an even share of the ball and using it incredibly well can win you a flag. How far off achieving either of those for a whole year are we?

we are probably closer to that than we are to playing a Sydney style game. Some will never believe it because 'skill errors' is so widely used as an all encompassing excuse that is used for structural flaws in our team (and other losing teams) but we are actually trying to build a team that plays hard running, high skill, high possession footy and we have made some progress. Just not enough yet.

 

[evo]

I don't think there's too much disagreement as to what we all would like to see, much along those lines. The question is do you think Wallace's plan of run and carry and speedy flankers over everything else has any chance of succeeding?

If they can all kick straight and use the ball intelligently,yes.Unfortunately we've used way too many picks for my liking since 2004 on guys with suspect actions.

I could list them if you like,but I'm sure you know who they are.

Been saying it since the day I got here.The most important aspect in 21st century football played on bowling greens is disposal.

It's the main thing I look at when I watch juniors.If they can't kick I don't want a bar of them

 

[Disco08]

I disagree with the first point and agree with the everything else. I have to say I seriously doubt focusing mainly on run and carry has any chance of ever winning us or anyone else a flag.

 

[evo]

It's splitting hairs mate.Geelong did plenty of 'run and carry'.

We just need good footballers.

 

[The_General]

I can't cop the injury excuse. The roos lost their full forward and replaced him with a party animal midget, they still ended up at the right end of the ladder. The Hawks lost their midget full forward who has kicked 120 odd goals in the previous two seasons:-yet they ended up kicking more goals this year than last. The Pies didn't have Buckley or Clement and their Ruckman has a heart the size of a pea.

Inexperience is also a pretty lame excuse, Collingwood have really bought on the likes of Clarke, Goldsack, Thomas and Pendlebury. Geelong have a younger team than us, yet they are light years ahead.

Geelong have a younger team than us? What makes you say that?

The injury excuse does come to the fore though, because the depth of our list is crap. No ruck for pretty much the entire year, and our best hard nut midfielder out. We simply don't have the depth to cover them. If we had Simmonds up and running for most of the year, we'd have finished a lot higher than 16. Probably 9th....

 

[IrockZ]

ports stats in 04 shows that they played a pretty uncontested style of footy, but they still had pickett, hardwick and carr etc in the side which gave them SOME form of hardness to balance with the brillance of wanganeen and the burgoynes etc

you still need that presence no matter how much skill you have

king, jackson, connors are crucial imo

 

[Harry]

It's splitting hairs mate.Geelong did plenty of 'run and carry'.

True, but besides Wojinski and GAblett they don't have speedsters. The likes of Ling, Corey, Johnson, Selwood, etc are medium to slow paced. They did plenty of run and carry but they have alot of smart players who know when and where to run. No point being quick like a fly without a head.

 

[evo]

I couldn't agree more mate.

Richmond are the dumbest runners in the league.

 

[Col.E.Kurtz]

I couldn't agree more mate.

Richmond are the dumbest runners in the league.

young runners though, so there is hope