Scratchy Win

[mightytiges]

Another thing, alot of people constantly say that we lack small crumbers in the forward line and we struggle to keep the ball there. My theory on this is that we do not get enough midfielders in our forward 50 in our attacking moves. This stems IMO directly from what I've stated above, players are not streaming forward from behind the play.

Agree with you Harry on the fact we don't have enough midfielders pushing forward. I would guess there's some wariness about pushing forward if in case we turnover the ball and then there's all these free opponents everywhere without a man and your opponent gets on the end of the rebound. With a few more wins would come the belief and confidence throughout the team to run off and create more options. The first signs of that were there in the second half of last Sunday's game with Leon and Rodan getting forward and Tivs run. Also 12 of our 16 goals came from non-talls and 6 goals came in general play (9 mark, 1 free).

There's basically 4 ways to get goals when entering the forward 50:
A) Pass it to the main tall forward
B) Pass it to a decoy/smaller forward
C) Pass it to midfielder who's pushed into the 50.
D) Run in and kick it yourself.
At the end of the day you go for the best of those options at that moment and not always option A (bomb it to Richo) or any just one of the others. The last quarter and a half last Sunday we started pick the best option which was the most pleasing part of the win IMO. We started to play smart footy.

Tigerdog, you say that you heard somewhere that frawely recognises this fact. I hope this is true.

I think it was in response to one of the Ask Danny questions.

 

[Harry]

Tigerblood, I'm not saying that this should be a blanket strategy. I've always said that we are too one dimensional and need other alternatives to goal. To say that it should be a blanket stratedy I would be contradicting myself.

I agree we need to find leads, however sometimes when we don't have clear leads support needs to come from the midfield providing run from behind the play and providing another option.

Once richmond get into the habit of running hard from behind the play, this will then give players in possession another option to quickly dish off a handpass to a running player. This way a lead will be more quickly utilised and found, as the player delivering it has momentum and is not kicking over the man on the mark.

Otherwise if there is no running support, the player marking forward of the centre would have to stop, prop, look for a leading target, and kick over the man on the mark. This uses up valuable time where the lead can be covered.

You say that we tried this last year with fiora, tivendale and cameron at half back. I know what youre saying, but this was in an attempt to give us run from defence. Frawely did not encourage his players to provide a running linking option at half forward to attempt to penetrate the forward 50. Thats how I saw things.

Mighty Tiges - I agree with your 4 ways to get a goal analysis. And this is exactly my point. We are not utilising option D no where near enough. We are not running hard and linking up with handballs in a penatrative way into the 50 and into scoring areas.

I agree with your wariness argument of players not leaving their man, however we cannot be too wary. We need to be pro-active, more attacking and we need to have the confidence to take on the opponents and have the confidence not to be convinced that we will turn the ball over.

 

[YeahNah]

Harry. I tend to agree with you. We are at present one dimentional. I think we do not have enough goal scorers. To be successful in today's game, you need to be able to kick aroung 14 - 15 goals on a regular basis. Even with Richo & Ottens at their best, we need more from the other forwards and the midfielders.
I'm not sure our game plan is the problem, it's our adherence to the game plan that seems to be bringing us undone. Unless the team is on a roll and confidence is high, we revert to our bad habits and try to shut up shop. Then when we go forward we bomb it long to the talls and hope for the best. Remember our 101 point loss in 2000 or 2001? Essendon flooded the midfield. We were just so embarasing that day. I never go home before the final siren, but boy I sure wanted to that day! Ugh.
I'm not looking for a new game plan. I think the one we have needs to be better enforced.
When I played junior footy, my coach said when we've got the ball, run forward. When they've got the ball, man up. Tackle in gangs and always look out for you mates. Not much has changed in25 years. That basic stratergy is still sound today. The accountable football must be
Take responsability for your desicions
Always know where your man is.

 

[Mikee]

Harry. I wish Danny Frawley reads your posts you have written in the past week. You have hit the nail on the head so severely. Your opinions and insight are exactly what i've been thinking for some time. Our general lack of run and link-up play going forward is very poor and pretty much non-existent. We are so stop-start and static, making it very hard to get any momentum. We rely too much on players ahead of us making a lead into our direct vision, whether it be a tall or short player. Why don't we ever have people running past in waves ro recieve handballs so they can have speed up to make it easier to pass it to an option or even run to the 50m, and kick a goal themselves. Harry has said all of this before so we are going over old ground.

Will Frawley ever wake up to this and maybe show some initiative and back the players not to be too accountable all time, and back there abilities to run and create more options for the player with the ball and let the oppostion worry about us for a change and man up on us.

Will be very interesting to see now with Richardson and Ottens out whether Frawley will alter the game plan or stick with this stop-start find a leading target tactic.

Go Tiges!!!

 

[diggler]

Mark my words, Spud the dud, the man with no imagination, will bring back Vardy as a marking forward.

 

[TigerFurious]

Some pretty good posts on this thread.

I agree with Harry and others about lack of run through the middle and it certainly has been a problem for some time. While a lot of it has to do with coaching I think that our brigade of so called skillful runners rarely do their job well and when they do it stands out like a sore thumb.

Look at the difference Tivendale running the lines and bursting packs has on our team. We actually looked like a half decent team when he had the ball at times on Sunday. But then you have others especially Bowden who just don't play like they should. Personally I have no problem with Bowden in the midfield. He is a ball magnet and plays his best football there. But certainly of late Bowden gets alot of his footy across half back and disposes of it like the fat kid with glasses did in under 10's.

Like Tivendale against the dogs, Bowden and to a lesser extent Fiora when he plays midfield need to get the ball and run forward and break the lines rather than dinky little short kicks sideways. And also deliver some quality long ball into our forward line.

Also, Rodan when he burst out of packs and goes for a run really adds something to our rather bland midfield.

Unfortunately I have to agree with Diggler, rathe rthan try something different like Campbell as a leading forward etc Frawley will most likely bring in Vardy making our forward line easy pickings for the Dockers.

 

[MC24]

… we cannot be too wary. We need to be pro-active, more attacking and we need to have the confidence to take on the opponents and have the confidence not to be convinced that we will turn the ball over.

Absolutely Harry. What will make the biggest difference to the way we play the game is the mindset of our coach. Until he realises that this negative style of game stifles initiative from players then we will continue to be the under-achievers we are. There are very few highlights in our games, from our players. Even in 2001, a good year as far as wins goes, it was so hard going just watching and the best part about our wins was the final siren. There was just so little creativity or flair and it just seemed to me like the players had shackles on. They were on so tight, I couldn't breathe from where I was sitting.

To me, 2000 and 2001 highlighted that our players have the ability to stick to a game plan. If we can lose the negative stuff and become a lot more attacking, surely it has to put so much more pressure on the opposition.

I hope Danny realises how constraining the defensive game style is on the players and how uninspiring it is to watch.

Giving our play makers negative roles puts me in a spin. The sooner we give more of our players a license to attack and use some initiative, rather than tag every other opposition player, the better off we'll be. Instead, our players always seem to have to be in a negative/defensive frame of mind. That can hardly allow players to think creatively or outside of the job they've been assigned.

A lack of confidence can only add to our woes. In Round 1, what stood out was the running in numbers by Collingwood players. They probably made just as many mistakes as we did. However, because they had a player in support, they were able to atone quickly and get the ball moving their way. Conversely, our players were one against two and if they didn't have a second, third and even fourth effort, Collingwood was able to take the ball away with ease. As a supporter, when you see this it's deflating. So I can imagine it doesn't instill confidence in the players either and puts them on the back foot.

I'm no expert, but I'd say that it takes a lot more confidence to attack than defend. Defence is important, but we don't need 18 defenders out on the ground.

… they lost because our intensity was higher than there's in the 2nd half and that they didn't man up. I'm not trying to take credit away from us.

But what happens when the oppositions intensity matches ours, or even exceeds ours (like in a finals game). What usually happens? We more times than not crumble under this pressure and lose. Why? IMO this is because of our one dimensional and predictable attacking play.

We have a reputation as a team who needs everything to be going our way in order to play good football. As soon as things start to go against us, that's when things get ugly. Maybe it's too early to call, but that's why players such as Johnson, Coughlan and Rodan stand out to me, because they seem to have the ability to perform regardless of circumstances.

I agree that because the Bulldogs didn't match our intensity in the second half was perhaps the reason we won. Confidence is a real key to us playing better and there has obviously been a lack of confidence and belief within the playing group. The difference in the second half, against the Bulldogs, was marked. As the game wore on, the confidence in our players grew and it was like a different team.

Some people say we are too predictable. A caller to Club Corner on Monday night made a point about this. His view was that there was nothing wrong with being predictable. The only thing he could see that was wrong was that we just weren't good enough to carry out the game plan. He also suggested that if Brisbane had our game plan they would be able to carry it out, because they are good enough to do so. I suggest that Brisbane could carry out any game plan.

Therefore, until we develop confidence and belief within the playing group, does it matter what our game plan is?

Great posts everyone.

 

[Harry]

MC24, I agree with what you say, however the thing I have a different view on is your last statement - " Therefore until we develop confidence and beleif within the playing group, does it matter what our game plan is?"

I firmly beleive that it does matter what our game plan is. If for example Frawely says to Rodan - Listen David, your playing in the guts toaday and make sure you beat your man and make sure your accountable to your man, then thats what he will do. He will be less inclined to run off and support.

However if spud said to him - win the ball, beat your man, and don't be afraid to run off your man to provide running support when we are attacking, and when you have the ball and no leads are on, run and penetrate the 50, then he will have a different mind set.

If he said this to most of his his midfielders then they would be all aware that (a) i've got a license to leave my man and run with the ball and run to support my teamates and (b) my teamates are also running off their man to support.

Then the whole midfield group as a unit will be more willing to do so knowing that even if the player hits a brick wall in the form of a tackle, then there will be a teamate to the left and to the right of him, and the risk of turning the ball over will reduce.

If this isn't practiced in training, or if it isn't illustrated on the white board with arrows indicating where the players should run, then it is very hard to perfect. This is because it is a matter of "all or nothing", and should be executed as a whole running unit. It needs to be instilled as a game plan so that every player knows whats expected of him and that they know what the other players are going to do.

Rodan will not have the confidence to run with the ball into the attacking 50 if he is unsure whether there will be players providing sufficient support to the left and right of him.

Let me just say that I'm not saying that this is the only thing we should be donig. Obviously aspects such as winning the hard ball, manning up, being accountable, executing skills, finding leading targets etc. are important and probably even more important, however my observations lead me to beleive that our gameplan is lacking in what I have explained.

 

[Rosy]

…What will make the biggest difference to the way we play the game is the mindset of our coach.

…To me, 2000 and 2001 highlighted that our players have the ability to stick to a game plan. If we can lose the negative stuff and become a lot more attacking, surely it has to put so much more pressure on the opposition.

…I hope Danny realises how constraining the defensive game style is on the players and how uninspiring it is to watch.

I suspect I’m swimming a bit against the tide here but I disagree. I think it’s just different. I realize most people prefer a high scoring shootout, but if that’s not the way it pans out I actually love watching a close fought defensive game. I love low scoring wet weather slog outs.

I’d rather get 4 points by being defensive than to lose because we aren’t good enough to beat teams at their own game.

I just look forward to the time when we are good enough to win on a consistent basis by being the aggressor.

Hopefully we’ll start to see a difference with drafting in the near future. Until then we have to play with the strengths and weaknesses of the personnel we’ve got.

To me 2001 highlighted the fact we had the success we did because of our defensive play.
We might have even been caught out in the end because of it, but our back line carried us imo.

I agree we need to be more attacking, but I don’t agree with the perception that Danny has every player in the 22 being defensive.
The players have to take some of the flak for the way they play. Last year Danny must have been tearing his hair out at the stuffing around and little backwards passes etc the players insisted on.

I think it’s also to do with confidence rather than because everyone was made to play in a defensive fashion.
Maybe we just haven’t had the players to be really attacking against the top teams, and hopefully that’s gradually changing.

I’ll take a win anyway we get it.

Giving our play makers negative roles puts me in a spin. The sooner we give more of our players a license to attack and use some initiative, rather than tag every other opposition player, the better off we'll be.

Do you think Cogs and Tivva and Johnson and Rodan and Joel and Campbo etc were all instructed to tag rather than attack.
I guess none of us know what Danny told them to do, but I’d doubt very much that he’d have instructed every other player to tag.
I can see both sides to this, and I don't think it would be correct to lay all the blame for the way the team plays at Danny's feet.

 

[Rosy]

To me, 2000 and 2001 highlighted that our players have the ability to stick to a game plan.

I'd be interested to know peoples opinions of the difference between 2000/2001 and 2003 game plans and how the players adhere to them.

 

[diggler]

Memberships are in decline is an indication that supporters are fed up with a side that plays a crappy, unentertaining game of football, masterminded by the buffon Frawley, the man with no imagination.
Last sunday was a prime example, 4 goals to half time in perfect conditions is a recipe for disaster! No one wants to watch this crap. If we dont improve quickly, we will be back playing home games at punt road.

 

[MC24]

MC24, I agree with what you say, however the thing I have a different view on is your last statement - " Therefore until we develop confidence and beleif within the playing group, does it matter what our game plan is?"

Thanks for the reply Harry, but I was more asking the question, rather than making a statement.

 

[mightytiges]

I'd be interested to know peoples opinions of the difference between 2000/2001 and 2003 game plans and how the players adhere to them.

2000/2001 I treat as two seasons combined with basically the same team (include Benny, Brodders, Knighter; take out Cogs,Rodan,Stafford,Johnson from 2003) except in 2000 we had heaps of injuries whereas 2001 we didn't as so made the finals. The teamwork, work ethic and defensive aspects of the side were very good which compensated for a suspect midfield and still brought into each game our outside runners like Tivs etc... against all but the top 3 sides in 2001. In 2001 we were also able to get all our talls on the park at once to stretch most defences - something we haven't be able to do since due to injury. I agree we won through our defensive pressure but I don't see that particularly as a negative if it works. Hey West Coast won two flags through strangulation of opposing sides. It's when it doesn't that it looks shocking as a spectacle and stupid as a game plan (eg: St Kilda's flood against Collingwood last year).

This year our midfield IMO looks decent and is imprving week by week with the inclusions of Johnson, Cogs and Rodan as permanent members of the rotation. In the first two games we at least matched opponents, whose midfields are their strengths, in terms of hardness, clearances and entries into the forward 50. Where we have gone askew is in our decision making and disposal going forward when we had the ball and not going for the smart percentage option rather than in previous years where we would lose out in the middle and would have to win back the ball in defence and drive forward from there. The last half on Sunday was much better in spotting up the best option and moving the ball on quickly forward but that needs to become the norm rather than the exception.

 

[johnson2richo2003]

Memberships are in decline is an indication that supporters are fed up with a side that plays a crappy, unentertaining game of football, masterminded by the buffon Frawley, the man with no imagination.
Last sunday was a prime example, 4 goals to half time in perfect conditions is a recipe for disaster! No one wants to watch this crap. If we dont improve quickly, we will be back playing home games at punt road.

once again diggler your reasoning is a lot left to be desired.
our style of play has nothing to with the downturn of memberships.2001 we played like we did on sunday.ugly.
but hey keep continuing with your sack the coach method as you are well aware it has worked in the past.

tell me this diggler give us your opinion who should coach the club from the ones who are available and your reasoning behind each wanna be coach?

 

[Harry]

I suppose to paint a clearer picture of what I'm talking about, for all you people out there who taped the game, rewind the tape to the highlights of the 2nd quarter where Hargraves kicked a goal for the dogs.

This was a chess mate situation because richmond as the defending team did everything it could, we had sufficient numbers back and we covered all their leads. The defensive pressure was on yet they still kicked a goal. Why?

Because they had lateral support and they had players running in waves, side by side, penetrating into the 50, linking up. We could not do anything about this because they had players being prepared to run hard from behind the play, to provide support.

I know that the dogs lost but it was this passage of play that stood out because the dogs did not need to depend on a mark inside 50 to score - something we all too often rely on.

When was the last time we ever kicked a goal like this.

 

[mightytiges]

When was the last time we ever kicked a goal like this.

Tivs in the last quarter on Sunday ;D.

Only teasing Harry .

 

[Rosy]

I must mention I asked my question about game plans because of MC24's comment about 2000/2001 highlighting the ability fo our players to stick to a game plan.

I didn't comment on it myself because firstly we have different players to then, and secondly in all honesty I don't really know our game plan.

I wouldn't know if our players stuck to a game plan back then, or if they do now and I actually question if anyone watching the game would know what Danny's game plan was.

I know we all say it's kick it long to Richo, or kick it long to Richo, but I don't believe that's what it actually is. :

I'm positive it wouldn't be to get rid of it quick so you're not the man caught with it, and I'm sure it wouldn't be handball blindly at every opportunity. Thats the way we could be forgiven for thinking it looks sometimes though.

I don't see how we stuck to a plan then and not now, except we gutsed it out for a few more wins back then, and probably had a lot more luck than last season as well.

 

[MC24]

I'd rather get 4 points by being defensive than to lose because we aren't good enough to beat teams at their own game.

As long as we continue this type of football then we know we'll just be making up the numbers. Either the coach doesn't have enough faith in his own players to be more attacking, or we're just not good enough.

Hopefully we'll start to see a difference with drafting in the near future. Until then we have to play with the strengths and weaknesses of the personnel we've got.

I see what could be Rosy. And I see that we could be a lot better if we had a more attacking mindset, because the defensive style puts us on the back foot all the time.

I agree we need to be more attacking, but I don't agree with the perception that Danny has every player in the 22 being defensive.

We're on the back foot most of the time Rosy, so it's a bit hard to tell who's not a defender.

The players have to take some of the flak for the way they play.

I agree Rosy, but it took us 10 weeks to get out of the trough we were in last season. To me, that's the responsibility of the coach and coaching staff. No doubt last season was a huge learning curve for Danny.

I think it's also to do with confidence rather than because everyone was made to play in a defensive fashion.

I did mention the importance of confidence and self-belief.

I'll take a win anyway we get it.

I'll take losing and learning from it, rather than winning and taking nothing from it, like we've been doing, IMO.

I guess none of us know what Danny told them to do, but I'd doubt very much that he'd have instructed every other player to tag.

I didn't make this point very clear. What I was getting at was when we play teams such as Essendon. We've lost games against them before we've even got out onto the ground. Danny has paid their players so much respect that he forgot about the ability of our own players. Consequently, our games against them have been over before they started.

… I don't think it would be correct to lay all the blame for the way the team plays at Danny's feet.

I agree Rosy, but I'd say he has to take a fair chunk of the responsibility.

 

[MC24]

I must mention I asked my question about game plans because of MC24's comment about 2000/2001 highlighting the ability fo our players to stick to a game plan.

Glad you picked me up there Rosy.

What I was trying to say was that we were 'disciplined' in the way we played throughout those seasons. Whether or not we stuck to the game plan is perhaps another matter.

 

[Rosy]

Haha don't think I'll be forgetting my nickname in a hurry anyway. There's a whole bunch of rosies there. :rollin