What you don't see on telly

[ROLLS ROYCE]

Jack, Tambling and JON were ordinary on the weekend and looked lazy. Simmonds ran harder than all 3!

Surely u r cofused. Jack for sure....but Richie worked humslef into the game while anyone who doubts JON's workrate is either biased or just does not watch him at all.

Sure he seems confused with ball in hand and his disposal is a little lacking, but hey, that applies to half our team.

He is much maligned merely because we picked him at 8 in the draft.

Do I think he can make it.....in short No, but I am willing to give the guy every chance to prove me wrong while he leads hard, tackles and chases. A few of his classier team-mates could learn a bit from his work ethic.

 

[martyshire]

Hey Rosy, great thread.

I've always believed that you don't see a third of what players do when watching on the TV but my take on it is slightly different. I think we create too many options, but they're all HALF-Options. Where as the quality teams create one clear option.

I first noticed it at the famous 157 game against the cats a couple of years ago. Every time a geelong player got the ball, it was obvious who was going to get the ball next. One player was always leading or presenting for the handball and all the other players were helping to make that disposal accurate. That is, they were either drawing an opposition player, putting on a shepherd for the ball carrier, running in the way of another richmond player or getting out of the space that the recipient of the ball was running into. I remember being amazed by what I saw. 9 Months earlier they had pretty much the same list and finished lower than us on the ladder and suddenly they were a well oiled unit whose skills 'appeared' to be much, much better than ours.
We were trying pretty hard but couldn't match them. We were playing like the coach had said to us 'you all have to make sure you create an option'. Pretty much every player involved in a play attempted to create an option but none of them were getting sufficient support for the their option to be any good. Players were runnng into each other's space, shepherds not being laid, and Geelong players were not being drawn anywhere. One or two Geelong players were able to pressure the ball carrier while the others would just tread water until the he was forced to get rid of the ball, when they would swamp the new ball barrier. Every time a richmond player looked up he had a couple of seconds before he was going to get crunched and 5 or 6 players calling for the ball who would also get crunched as soon as they got the ball.

I've been to almost every game in Victoria since then, and it's been the same story for at least part of every game (in some cases, the whole game). Our skills don't just suffer because most of the options we have available are low percentage. They also suffer because the ball carrier has too many half options and has to second guess himself about what the best option is. It's amazing how much easier it is to execute a skill accurately when you're not second guessing yourself. Anyone who has played cricket knows that if you change your mind half way through playing a shot you're in big trouble. How often do you see a Tennis player hesitate about which side of the court to hit a winner before hitting it straight into the net?

At Geelong (I haven't seen St Kilda live yet this year but maybe them too) they work as a team so that they the ball carrier has only one thing to concentrate on - making the disposal effective. On top of that it's usually an easy disposal. Geelong went from being 10th to being the best side in the comp by a mile in the space of 9 months. I'm pretty sure they didn't just all suddenly become good footy players with great skills. All teams have pretty much the same skill level, it's the style of play (i.e. the coach) that makes these skills look good or bad.

 

[Mr Pumblechook]

I don't believe our players are as unskilled as they sometimes appear. I don't think they're dumb footballers either. There's no doubt they're lacking in confidence and self belief. They just really don't seem to be thinking too well or playing for each other and that's been a problem we haven't been able to solve for years. I hope we find an answer soon.

Totally agree.

I don't know how to clearly separate our players skills and effort, from the game plan.

 

[Mantikorr]

I was shocked at how little Jack Riewoldt does when the ball isn't in his area. It seemed like that Mattner tackle v. Sydney cost him more than a shot at goal, he was terrible.

In Jacks defense on this one, the handball from Morton was terrible. Made him stop his movement forward to gather the ball. It was having to get moving again that made him look slow and consequently got him caught.

 

[Hungry]

We took particular notice of the options the player with the ball had at last week's game. More often that not the answer was zero...nothing. No movement up the ground, nobody leading, standing targets etc, no 100 metre sprints in desperation to get the ball. Players are knocked for their clangers and backwards play but really there is nothing offering for them a lot of the time so they don't always have a lot of choice. We just don't seem to have a simple, sustainable, achievable game plan drilled into the team. I can't help wonder how it would be if the players knew their roles and had the confidence in themselves, and their teammates to be able to carry it off.

People often speak of Terry's game plan on here but I don't know what they mean. Terry himself describes a run and carry style of play but I don't think it works for us when the player with the ball has little to no support. That doesn't necessarily show on telly but I think it's a big problem imo.

I don't believe our players are as unskilled as they sometimes appear. I don't think they're dumb footballers either. There's no doubt they're lacking in confidence and self belief. They just really don't seem to be thinking too well or playing for each other and that's been a problem we haven't been able to solve for years. I hope we find an answer soon.

You're right Rosy, but it was a game of two halves for us - early, we were prepared to move the ball on quickly, but a couple of bad turnovers seemed to spread through the group.

It's not so much that there weren't options, but that the ball carrier was hesitant.

Hesitant in the modern game means about 0.5 of a second - in our case it means that players seemed to ignore their first option, to kick into space for a leading player (as opposed to someone 30 metres in the clear), and once that first option was gone all other positions were covered.

It's got to be confidence, that's why they're looking for the easy, predictable pass to a teammate 30 metres in the clear and ultimately going nowhere.

 

[Blueyboy74]

I am sure we would run harder, tackle stronger and do the other little one-percenters if we were fit enough. Our guys are blowing a gale out there

 

[In the Blood]

Terry has a game plan..........the players just don't know what it is.

 

[K3]

Hey Rosy, great thread.

I've always believed that you don't see a third of what players do when watching on the TV but my take on it is slightly different. I think we create too many options, but they're all HALF-Options. Where as the quality teams create one clear option.

I first noticed it at the famous 157 game against the cats a couple of years ago. Every time a geelong player got the ball, it was obvious who was going to get the ball next. One player was always leading or presenting for the handball and all the other players were helping to make that disposal accurate. That is, they were either drawing an opposition player, putting on a shepherd for the ball carrier, running in the way of another richmond player or getting out of the space that the recipient of the ball was running into. I remember being amazed by what I saw. 9 Months earlier they had pretty much the same list and finished lower than us on the ladder and suddenly they were a well oiled unit whose skills 'appeared' to be much, much better than ours. <snip>

Well put Martyshire and I very much agree.

 

[doherz]

Run & Carry suggests to me good shepherding and hard running to create options to make life easier on the ball carrier. Funnily enough we do neither of these things well.

agreed. lets get back to basic structure and straighten up. sure, play on at all costs, but hold your positions and keep on your man. none of this triangular zoning crap.
then we can worry about tackling, shepherding, hunting in packs, etc.

but i kind of agree with you Rosy. I saw on numerous occasions when we had no options in front. THis is the "basketball" full court press mentatilty that Wallace brings. Hey Terry, this aint bball - the field is 10 times as long, you muppet.

anyway, i did see lids streaming through the guts at one stage on the weekend, stop and run in a circle, then kick sideways. Why? Full court press.

lets get back to basics boys.

 

[Rosy]

It's not so much that there weren't options, but that the ball carrier was hesitant.

Very hesitant and that's why we made a point to look at what was on offer up the ground. The lack of options caused the hesitancy a lot of the time.

We are slow though and give the opposition too much time to man up. One of my pet hates is everyone standing around waiting for Newmo or Joel to do the kick-in after a behind Any advantage we might have had by playing on quickly is lost.

 

[ROLLS ROYCE]

Surely it is not rocket science.

With the make-up we had last week we plonk Simmo at the top of the square and he does not move more than 30 metres from there....aka any fast breaks from defence with players straming forward only to have to do a giant u-turn would be negated.

JON played his role well as did Nahas. JON lead further upfield expecting Sarge to be the vocal point at CHF

Nahas worked hard around the packs and chased defensively but with no structure and Schulz not demanding the ball his crumbing roll was a lottery.

I know the modern game has flooding and switches and whatever but I think it is obvious that at all times u must have one tall sitting in the 50 metre arc AT ALL TIMES. Sure his man may run off but that is up to some of the players downfield to cover.

One quick turonover and the forward goals and the guy will not be running off too much.

I think we do not command any respect and as such give tohers teams the leeway to take risks knowing that our ball movement forward is hardly crisp and they will have time to push back.

To me that is a game plan an under 8's coach could come up with....but not at tigerland.

 

[Inspector]

Run & Carry suggests to me good shepherding and hard running to create options to make life easier on the ball carrier. Funnily enough we do neither of these things well.

We also don't have players that present Tambling should be using his pace to break from his backman & present on the lead from Half Forward guys like Pattison Schulz etc Riewoldt is the only one who does & Nahas. We are also very good at ignoring the 1st option then getting in trouble & looking backwards saw JON get the ball off Tambling & had Tambling running past also White free at 50m then he kicks to Riewoldt with 3 on him?

 

[KnightersRevenge]

We took particular notice of the options the player with the ball had at last week's game. More often that not the answer was zero...nothing. No movement up the ground, nobody leading, standing targets etc, no 100 metre sprints in desperation to get the ball. Players are knocked for their clangers and backwards play but really there is nothing offering for them a lot of the time so they don't always have a lot of choice. We just don't seem to have a simple, sustainable, achievable game plan drilled into the team. I can't help wonder how it would be if the players knew their roles and had the confidence in themselves, and their team-mates to be able to carry it off.

Excellent post Roses :clap
I'm always amazed at how much more I see when actually at the ground, as a result I don't vote in the players thread if I watch the game on the telly.