The real reason for the poor performance.....

[RemoteTiger]

The real reason(s) for the poor performance is -

1. Australian Rules is a game of keepings off - if you have the ball the opposition cannot score goals - so the simple objective is get the ball and once you have it give it to a team mate who is in a better position than you to kick a goal. WE ARE ALWAYS SECOND TO THE BALL - and if we ever do get it we give it back through turnovers.
2. To get the ball in many situations you have to be tough and hard in the packs - we only have one or two who will do this - the rest (whom Wallace recruited) stand out waiting for the ball to be delivered on a silver plate to them.
3. When you haven't got the ball put as much pressure on to cause an opposition mistake so you have a chance to get the ball back. WE HAVE FORGOTTEN HOW TO TACKLE - that is presuming we knew how to tackle in the 1st place.

In all aspects of this simple game you have to be tough and hard - then clever and precise.

SIMPLY WE ARE NONE OF THESE.............at the moment!

 

[mb64]

What better opportunity would they have had to show they didn't need him than to put in decent performances the last three weeks while he was out.

Seems to me they need him more than they realise.

Exactly

 

[walhalla tiger]

I blame "the review" for our clubs poor on field performance.

This football department review has been way too long and protracted. It seemed to start off on a less than helpful footing, but that's bye the bye. The grossly annoying part now is all we hear is the club is committing to it's internal process and we will are sticking to it. What a crock !

I've been directly involved in designing so called reviews with much larger interests than the RFC and have to wonder why on earth it needs to take so long.

In times of uncertainty and change, you cannot under estimate the need for communication to alleviate personal and professional concern. These concerns manifest themselves in many ways, but it seems (to me) that it has infected the coaching and playing group by punching the living suitcase out of their natural instinctiveness.

This Review MUST finish and not be artificially protracted. Very poor insight if there is a blind leading the blind mentality on how this is (not) progressing. If RFC people are treading on egg shells because of this review them bugger me, the "men" in charge need be be taken to task and made to be accountable for reasons other than their position of power.

So endeth my spray ......................

So, in essence you are saying that the exec's do not have the right skill set nor experience to handle this business. Building a promotional products business is a lot different to being highly respected in the commerce world?

 

[walhalla tiger]

I blame the fact that Wallace's game plan seems to mean we should avoid contact at all times. We keep getting battered and hit, we don't reciprocate. Eventually we just crawl back into our shells and hope the big bad men will go away.

If Cousins had any detrimental effect on the club, I would only guess it could have been a realistion to the rest of the playing group, especially our elder statesmen, that the way they have been training and approching the game over the last few years has been nothing short of amatuer.

Introduce an elite (ok, ex-elite) player from a successful club and see in fact it takes a lot harder work than they have been putting in might not be a welcome experience for many.

So, if you are paid a truck load of money and not held accountable is it the individuals fault? In my exp this type of scenario kills club culture and creates a them and us environment.

 

[jb03]

Whatever it is I am sure it will come out in the wash sooner or later.
Something's gone very wrong over the off season.

Dunno about that Tooheys. I think we are just not as good as they thought we were (coaches, club officials and supporters alike). Don't think specifically occurred that caused everything to go wrong. The 8 from the last 11 line was always misleading.

 

[walhalla tiger]

Dunno about that Tooheys. I think we are just not as good as they thought we were (coaches, club officials and supporters alike). Don't think specifically occurred that caused everything to go wrong. The 8 from the last 11 line was always misleading.

was it quite a hot day the day you took your photo JB03?

 

[tigerjoe]

Quite simply we are as soft as butter!

Last in tackles and 1%ers says it all doesn't it?

A badly suited game plan, no confidence in the coaching staff and we are SOFT, plain and simple.

Get a damn coach who will toughen these pussies up, have them playing for him and the jumper and watch us start winning again.

2002 - 2009 the softest Richmond side's in the club's history.

 

[Phar Ace]

In all aspects of this simple game you have to be tough and hard - then clever and precise.

SIMPLY WE ARE NONE OF THESE.............at the moment!

Ah if it were all that simple.........
Ever team are these things, it just varies by degrees - and the degrees are what gets you each week - not any supposed void.

In all aspects of this simple game you have to be tougher and harder - then cleverer and more precise.

A Melbourne player I know is having the same issues. He's tough, he's hard (enough) - he's certainly clever and proven precise. He is so confused by the coach at the moment, he's twix inbetween and apparently so are his teammates. He also complains that all Dean Bailey does is rant and rave. There is noise happening, but no coherant message.

We've heard a couple of RFC players say something similar, not the rant and rave so much, but the coherant message. The game plan was, by one player's admission, too hard to follow over the past couple of years (ie the message lacked coherance). I saw this first hand on a pre-game board.

I forgive the players the Carlton debacle - the build up was huge, like nothing the players would have experience, and it clearly got to them. It wasn't the Richmond of the weeks earlier, let alone the team of last half of 2008.

The Geelong game, while disappointing to lose, was a competitive and willing brand of football played eaqually by two teams. The better team won.

The Bulldogs game was competitive enough to 3/4-time, marred by skill errors and mistakes by both sides admittedly. The last quarter capitulation was a big disappointment and really questioned our strength and fitness as much as our skills.

Haven't seen the Melbourne game in any way yet - but given earlier comments about how no coherant message being received by the Melbourne players, I was astonished at the loss. Can you have two teams competing for the most incoherant message from a coach - if so - we mast have one that :

Richo said it today - pare the game plan back, more one on one football, make it simplier. I've never heard that message more loudly. But can Terry hear it?

 

[year of the tiger]

I don't buy any of this rumour stuff re disunity / cousins etc or the review taking to long (reviews are a normal part of business life these days).

To me it is a bit more simple
1) richmond key experienced players are traditionally slow starters
2) it was always going to be touch and go whether we made the 8 (cousins or not) and it required a 100% effort by all players every game to get there ie a hard slog for the whole year
3) the media took hold of the agenda and we have got caught up in all the hype (see Carlton game).
4) Sheedy's comments inflamed an already volatile media and falsely put us as a potential top 4 side
5) confidence of the playing group has therefore plumented as a result of the rnd 1 no show (from an artifically high level)
6) once confidence goes, so does any resemblance of skill
7) in an elite competitive environment, the fact that we have put ourselves on the mat inspires other teams to believe in themselve more (eg Melb) and it has become extremely difficult exercise to get ourselves up and going again as a result
8) when all else fails - get back to basics
9) we need to get a win, however ugly it is (nearly got there last week) and then slowly build

It is a very hard task to turn this around but I believe it can be done and I do not think we need to throw out 5 years of rebuild - for richmond perhaps 5 years was not long enough

 

[TOT70]

Ah if it were all that simple.........
Ever team are these things, it just varies by degrees - and the degrees are what gets you each week - not any supposed void.

In all aspects of this simple game you have to be tougher and harder - then cleverer and more precise.

A Melbourne player I know is having the same issues. He's tough, he's hard (enough) - he's certainly clever and proven precise. He is so confused by the coach at the moment, he's twix inbetween and apparently so are his teammates. He also complains that all Dean Bailey does is rant and rave. There is noise happening, but no coherant message.

We've heard a couple of RFC players say something similar, not the rant and rave so much, but the coherant message. The game plan was, by one player's admission, too hard to follow over the past couple of years (ie the message lacked coherance). I saw this first hand on a pre-game board.

I forgive the players the Carlton debacle - the build up was huge, like nothing the players would have experience, and it clearly got to them. It wasn't the Richmond of the weeks earlier, let alone the team of last half of 2008.

The Geelong game, while disappointing to lose, was a competitive and willing brand of football played eaqually by two teams. The better team won.

The Bulldogs game was competitive enough to 3/4-time, marred by skill errors and mistakes by both sides admittedly. The last quarter capitulation was a big disappointment and really questioned our strength and fitness as much as our skills.

Haven't seen the Melbourne game in any way yet - but given earlier comments about how no coherant message being received by the Melbourne players, I was astonished at the loss. Can you have two teams competing for the most incoherant message from a coach - if so - we mast have one that :

Richo said it today - pare the game plan back, more one on one football, make it simplier. I've never heard that message more loudly. But can Terry hear it?

There is a lot of sense here. Good post.

I disagree with one of your points though. I think the game plan is quite apparent to the players but, unfortunately, it has become apparent to the opposition as well.

In my office there is a former Premiership player (different club) who used to barrack for the Tigers as a kid and has a soft spot for them. We've been having some interesting discussions about the way the Tigers play and we reckon that Wallace's game plan has been well-and-truly broken down by the other coaches.

Some of Matt White's turnovers in the first quarter on Saturday were really good examples of what I mean. The Tigers often win the ball back across half-back, usually from an opposition turnover. Guys like Moore, McGuane and Bowden are very good at reading the incoming ball and hunting down an errant pass. What tends to then happen is a period of switching play with shortish kicks, from one flank to the other and back again. While this is happening players are beginning to mass around the middle of the ground- both teams. To break the deadlock of passes across half-back, some of the Tigers are forced out to the wing to receive an inevitable short kick. That player is usually allowed the ball but the pressure on him intensifies as soon as he gets it. The problem is that his is only ever looking to do one thing with it, kick or hand-pass short to the group in the middle and allow that group to link up with run from behind, Bowden, McMahon etc. Problem is, that is where all the pressure is and that is where the turnovers generally occur. The midfielders are usually outnumbered and under seige.

Other clubs do not defend the flanks against Richmond, they don't have to. They just wait for the inevitable change of direction back to the corridor and swoop.

The weakness in the game plan is that it is too predictable. They only ever use one path out of defence. It is far too easy for the opposition to mass in the middle and pressure the ball-carrier.

Wallace could win the next three games simply by instructing his players to switch the ball once only and run it up the flank, instead of through the corridor. This would throw all the opposition's planning out the window and would put them on the back foot. It would also allow players like White, Deledio, Foley and Jackson to use their pace. Too often they are hemmed in tight when they get the ball because they are in that congested area in the middle. Richmond play most of their games on the wide open spaces of the MCG but they are always cramped in when they win the ball- go figure that one out. I presume that Terry wanted these race-horse types because he wanted them to run the legs off their opponents, so why does he allow them to be trapped without space? It makes no sense.

Unfortunately, no-one will allow Jordan McMahon unhindered passage through the corridor again. Give that one up, Terry.

 

[Baloo]

Wallace could win the next three games simply by instructing his players to switch the ball once only and run it up the flank, instead of through the corridor.

Isn't that how we beat Hawthorn last year ?

 

[tigercharlie]

The Buck stops with the coach !

We can rant on about the abysmal recruiting , lack of leadership , skill errors ad nauseum but the fact remains that Wallace has had long enough !

Time to put someone else in the hot seat . You just never know . Like the swans did with Roos and then it all gelled for them .

Its not gelling for Wallace , hasnt really in five years but still we procrastinate .

Im tired of drinking from the cup of mediocrity that is Terry Wallace .

I would rather die of thirst !!!!!

 

[TIGEREXTRA]

Quite simply we are as soft as butter!

Last in tackles and 1%ers says it all doesn't it?

A badly suited game plan, no confidence in the coaching staff and we are SOFT, plain and simple.

Get a damn coach who will toughen these pussies up, have them playing for him and the jumper and watch us start winning again.

2002 - 2009 the softest Richmond side's in the club's history.

Spot on.

Mental weakness. I and many others have been saying it for years.

 

[TOT70]

Isn't that how we beat Hawthorn last year ?

Actually, a lot of the games Wallace wins come about when he adapts the game plan to play certain teams. That game was a classic, as was the game against Adelaide a few years ago when they used the Bowden bros to get hundreds of cheap possessions across half back-Wallace was trying to drag the normally defensive Crows out of their comfort zone and it worked- once.

He has also had several good games when, usually out of desperation, he decides to play man-on-man for awhile.

This reinforces my point, the regular gameplan has been shredded by his opposite numbers.

If Wallace really wants to keep his job, he needs to chuck everything they have been practising out the window for a while and come up with some fresh tactics for a couple fo months.

 

[walhalla tiger]

let the leadership group decide the tactics. what was that game we won when previously Tezza did this?

 

[Massai]

Old Navy saying "This lot could not run a brothel with a shipload of sailors parked next to it" readily springs to mind, when it comes to how Richmond play their game.

 

[Freezer]

...is because we're lazy. The players simply do not work hard enough physically or mentally. Concentration is hopeless. (Note the last 5 minutes of the 2nd quarter against Melbourne.) Players switch off far too easily and seem to believe their job is done if the ball isn't within 2 metres of them.

Couple that with ordinary ball handling and disposal skills and well, you end up where we are...

 

[Red Sea Tiger]

So, in essence you are saying that the exec's do not have the right skill set nor experience to handle this business. Building a promotional products business is a lot different to being highly respected in the commerce world?

My take on it is like most things, if you are out of your depth you struggle. Some succeed, while others flounder and sometimes quite spectacularly on both counts. I do prefer people to be stretched as a principle though much more than never challenged.

I do not know the specifics of the competencies of those involved at RFC so it's a bit unfair of me to be too pointed about it. I "hope" that I'm wrong, but gee I worry when time ticks on and the main focus then rests upon the principle "well we have a process and we are sticking to it".................. ah hello what if it's flawed, what will rein it in or redirect the focus to the real core !

How is the review being reviewed ? I'm not being flippant here or tongue in cheek here either. I hope we're not going around in circles just because it must be seen to be the most important factor in believing we must stick to "the process".

I don't buy any of this rumour stuff re disunity / cousins etc or the review taking to long (reviews are a normal part of business life these days).

Point taken. Only concern here though is that just because business reviews are more part and parcel of normal life these days, doesn't mean that the negative consequences aren't worthy of the potential for concern. I'd say that most (poor) reviews significantly underestimate the negative impact that such interventions can bring. People can be affected in ways that may appear like they shouldn't be a problem, but underneath look out.

It can be quite insidious and hence why I believe that our coaches and particularly our players have lost (much of) their "natural instinctiveness". If a tiger losses it's natural predatory instinct it dies !


Thanks for these as they gave me a chance to add a fraction more depth as to why I posted this in the first place. Much appreciated.