Its 90% Game Plan 10% Players | 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.

Its 90% Game Plan 10% Players

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bill James
  • Start date Start date
B

Bill James

Guest
In summary we are two slow going forward and two fast going back. Specifically our game plan which are defficient.

We spot up rather than play on way to often. This causes the players to have overposess and eventually turn the ball over because there is noone in space. This style of game saps the players confidence and energy.

We don't build a wall at half forward like a lot of other teams we just get on our bikes and run back to the backline leaving one or two small forwards to run around and harras the ball carrier. This lowers our tackle count becuase we are running away from the ball carrier not at them. It also runs us out of legs.

We have never set up our forward line with talls who know how to make multiple leads in sync with one another. As a result we take most of our shots at goals from out on the flanks. This makes our goal kicking look inaccurate compared to other teams that take more shots from CHF. It also shows up with a low goals to inside 50 ratio. It also make our deliver look lworse than it is because we don't create clear targets.

The only think a coach can do is create space for his own team and close it down for the other team. Wallace's game plan creates space in our backline and conjestion forward of centre.

I just think of the players like Cogs, Newman etc that have played 5 years under Spud and now 5 years under Wallace. They must be thinking the club has wasted pretty much their entire careers.
 
Have been saying this for over 12 months Billy Boy. Spot on...but if 2 very intelligent men like us can work it out why cant those highly paid coaching staff??? ;)
 
Nothing wrong with the game plan in the first half. Lots of run and used the corridor well.

Imagine if we had of had a key forward.

I would like to know what caused the change after half time.
 
ROLLS ROYCE said:
Have been saying this for over 12 months Billy Boy. Spot on...but if 2 very intelligent men like us can work it out why cant those highly paid coaching staff??? ;)

News Flash...Richmond is run by morons. Sorry to break the news to you. Tiges did a great job of controlling the flanks last night whereas Essendon went down the centre. And look who won! Not rocket science. The game plan is crap but don't worry it's nothing to do with TW. It's always someone else's fault.
 
josey said:
Nothing wrong with the game plan in the first half. Lots of run and used the corridor well.

Imagine if we had of had a key forward.

I would like to know what caused the change after half time.
We took the vast bulk of our shots at goal from the flanks, how can you say we used the corridor. We were just lucky that we kicked a better than average proportion of goals from those spots.
 
Bill James said:
We took the vast bulk of our shots at goal from the flanks, how can you say we used the corridor. We were just lucky that we kicked a better than average proportion of goals from those spots.
Disagree with that we did use the centre corridor in the first half, its our dumb forwards that lead out to the flanks that give us those wide shots.
 
josey said:
Nothing wrong with the game plan in the first half. Lots of run and used the corridor well.

Imagine if we had of had a key forward.

I would like to know what caused the change after half time.

Out of legs. We slowed the game down to get a breather and got swamped.
 
Bill James said:
We took the vast bulk of our shots at goal from the flanks, how can you say we used the corridor. We were just lucky that we kicked a better than average proportion of goals from those spots.

We had our shots from the flanks because we did not have a key forward who could lead up the middle. Smaller guys have to lead out wide.

In the first half we looked to move the ball quickly and through the middle were possible. Took the Dons on at their own game. We were smashing them at the contest and getting a lot of run.

As I said earlier.

What changed to make us go back to playing the insipid footy we displayed in the second half?
 
Whilever we have no system(s) and some ineffectual players:-

a) self belief erodes bit by bit every week

b) we must hope that the other team does not turn up for long enough for our disorganised efforts to win us matches
 
Stats from last night: Tiges had more kicks,marks,handballs,hitouts,frees.The disposals per goal average:30,essendon 17.Lose by 42 points.Gameplan?
 
I don't like the gameplan much, even when we were playing well I though it required too much energy to play and left us vulnerable to counterattack, but in no sport, ever, is gameplan 90% of the battle.

The gamplan hasn't changed that much from last year when we won the odd game, the difference this year is that the players have stopped believing in it and each other. Even a good gameplan fails in  those circumstances.
 
we were always going to slow down after half time.

we played first half at a fast pace and our players looked stuffed where as essendon looked fresh walking off the ground
 
mtench said:
Disagree with that we did use the centre corridor in the first half, its our dumb forwards that lead out to the flanks that give us those wide shots.
Not dumb forwards, small forwards. Had to go there to get the ball.
 
josey said:
We had our shots from the flanks because we did not have a key forward who could lead up the middle. Smaller guys have to lead out wide.
That was one of my original points.

In the first half we looked to move the ball quickly and through the middle were possible. Took the Dons on at their own game. We were smashing them at the contest and getting a lot of run.
Watched the replay and apart from centre clearances we did not use the corridor often at all. We were winning contests playing one on one.

As I said earlier.

What changed to make us go back to playing the insipid footy we displayed in the second half?
One thing that did change was the same as port last week. When Knights realised we were playing one on one he made the forwards lead up high to create space. He also cleared out the stoppages in the forward line so they had plent of space. It worked a treat for them after half time. From our point of view we changed nothing. We started missing the low percentage shots from the flanks in the third quarter and ran out of legs because we over posess. The game plan is not sustainable for 100min.