What game were the Tigers playing on Saturday?

[Eddie.]

I know i will get howled down by the passionate Tigers fans in here. I know they got the 4 points and would of lost if they played different and Wallace is a mastermind, yada, yada, yada

Seriously though AFL has gone to the dogs. This keep ball, chip backwards game is a foul look. When you are time wasting with 45 minutes to go its a clear sign the game of AFl can be manipulated too easily. What about players walking behind the posts instead of kicking it in to concede a point? What about terrible taggers who go home having not even looked at the football all day?

The game has seriously lost its way over the last few years, and only more rule changes will keep the spectacle from degenerating further.

Now fire up Tigers fans...

 

[lockyno1]

I am a Bomber fan and believe me it was a BRILLIANT plan by the Tigers. In the end if they did not play this way they would have lost by 10 goals. This was the ONLY way to have a chance to beat the crows. Great coaching by Richmond.

 

[Eddie.]

I know that.

Its just alot of teams to it and it is hardly great for the game.

I know Tigers fans were more then happy after the game, but their fans were giving them the rev up during the chipping it around stuff.

 

[lockyno1]

I know that.

Its just alot of teams to it and it is hardly great for the game.

I know Tigers fans were more then happy after the game, but their fans were giving them the rev up during the chipping it around stuff.

What other teams do it? If you say Sydney I will disagree. They do play "tempo football" but that does not usually revolve around chipping backwards, etc. These games are VERY RARE. They happen purely as a gameplan. If its working you aint changing it.

 

[camsmith]

I know i will get howled down by the passionate Tigers fans in here. I know they got the 4 points and would of lost if they played different and Wallace is a mastermind, yada, yada, yada

Seriously though AFL has gone to the dogs. This keep ball, chip backwards game is a foul look. When you are time wasting with 45 minutes to go its a clear sign the game of AFl can be manipulated too easily. What about players walking behind the posts instead of kicking it in to concede a point? What about terrible taggers who go home having not even looked at the football all day?

The game has seriously lost its way over the last few years, and only more rule changes will keep the spectacle from degenerating further.

Now fire up Tigers fans...

I've already spoken on this on the Round 8 thread... (And i apologise in advance for writing an essay, im actually pretty pissed off that this is such a big issue and treated like its just a 'Richmond' issue. Its not)

Just skim read it :lol:

Why have the media and general public suddenly jumped on the Tigers back after this round? Teams and even Adelaide have been doing this all year.
In fact this game against the Crows is the FIRST time Richmond have gone with these tactics.. anyone who have watched us in the first few weeks would know that. Even against Sydney and the Dogs when we got flogged, we played attacking football and never dropped more than maybe 2 lose men in defence.

However just like when we won against Essendon and Carlton, the media had to discredit our win. Against those two teams we were critised for making too many errors (even though stats said we had about the same than all other teams in those rounds) and called our win 'ugly.' In those two games we played as attacking footy as i have ever seen.. the ball was nearly always in play and it was really end to end kind of stuff (the amount of behind kicked helped that..)

So we play ultra attacking, long kicking and a fast paced game of footy, yet the media get on our backs and call it an (as the big bold letters in the HS said) UGLY win. Then we have a once off ulta short-chipping possession style game, beating the premiership favourites.. and thats still not good enough!!??? Then everyone decides to carry on about it (helped by a 1-7 coach who played the media beautifully) even though Richmond are the team that employs those kind of tactics the least IMO.

I wont hide the fact watching the game i was thinking what on earth is going on here? but as the game kept going on, and as the final siren went... i knew it was a great win for the fact.. TW had outplayed and out-smarted Neil Craig and did everything in the laws of the game to win the footy game. It may not be the best thing to watch, but Richmond fans know that we would have got thumped had we not played that way, so an 'ugly' WIN is much better than an attractive loss (although nothing is attractive about getting done by more than 60 points)

It isn't good for the game if it happens week-in, week-out but i know Wallace wont be doing that each week, just like he hasn't done all year before the weekend.

You have to look at the situation; We were coming off an awful loss, playing at a stadium where we fair-dinkum play shocking footy at and we were playing a team who if not the best team in the AFL is bloody close to it (and who plays great footy at TD) And to top it off, had most of our defence and many senior players out due to injury... Wallace didn't have much to play with.. but credit to him, he coached to win the game and coached to counter Adelaides flooding and zoning off style of game and to counter all the things i mentioned above.

Like i said, it will be bad for the game if this happens each week, no doubt about that. The thing is it wont happen every week, and it shouldn't of happened last weekend, if Adelaide had manned up like they did with 20 minutes to go in the last quarter instead of waiting till it was almost too late, then we wouldn't be talking about this at all.. we would most likely be talking about a Crows win.

Terry Wallace should be congratulated, and IMO Craig should be facing all these questions about why he didn't STOP our style of footy, not terry being asked about a style that won us the game.

Each to their own i guess. I hate this brand of footy more than anyone, i hated the fact Sydney won the Grand Final last year, it was rewarding crap play... but a once off game like the Tigers played should not be meeting all this criticism. But it seems Sheedy has once again played the public (and media) for fools. :roll:

 

[camsmith]

What other teams do it? If you say Sydney I will disagree. They do play "tempo football" but that does not usually revolve around chipping backwards, etc. These games are VERY RARE. They happen purely as a gameplan. If its working you aint changing it.

But i think Sydney play (or played) the brand of footy that people call boring.. and it does involve a lot of short kicks (to allow players to get forward) and some kicking backwards, however imo no more than others (just trying to get some stats on that) to also allow players to move up the ground. It is well known they send many players behind the ball for a long amount of time.

 

[lockyno1]

But i think Sydney play (or played) the brand of footy that people call boring.. and it does involve a lot of short kicks (to allow players to get forward) and some kicking backwards, however imo no more than others (just trying to get some stats on that) to also allow players to move up the ground. It is well known they send many players behind the ball for a long amount of time.

True and for the record it was a brilliant gameplan by Wallace! In the end if you played "attacking footy by getting the ball forward at every possible chance you would have been flogged by 70+ points. You had every defender out, well almost. The only way was to slow the game down. Well played. Sydney have started to play a lot more attacking footy in the past month. They do send numbers behind the ball but don't most sides do that now Cam?

 

[camsmith]

Yep all sides do it, but Sydney do send them back for a long time, like i said. It is common just before the end of a quarter or if up by say 20 points to send one or two loose players back and send the midfielders back a bit deepers, but what infuriates me about Sydney and the game we lost to them two weeks ago, was that even when they had a lead of more than a hundred.. if we had a ball up or stoppage in our 50 arc, there wasn't a Sydney player in their half of the ground.

Thats what annoys me..

 

[lockyno1]

Yep all sides do it, but Sydney do send them back for a long time, like i said. It is common just before the end of a quarter or if up by say 20 points to send one or two loose players back and send the midfielders back a bit deepers, but what infuriates me about Sydney and the game we lost to them two weeks ago, was that even when they had a lead of more than a hundred.. if we had a ball up or stoppage in our 50 arc, there wasn't a Sydney player in their half of the ground.

Thats what annoys me..

I am not saying you are wrong but it is up to the other teams to man up. In the end if you plan man on man there should be NO free players. It is up to the coaches to address this issue.

 

[camsmith]

Yeah but coaches sometimes choose not to man up because they dont want such a crowded forward line. But i know what you mean, the coaches have to think up something to combat the loose players in defence..

 

[lockyno1]

Yeah but coaches sometimes choose not to man up because they dont want such a crowded forward line. But i know what you mean, the coaches have to think up something to combat the loose players in defence..

BINGO. Honestly coaches that whinge about "flooding" should wake up, that includes Sheedy for crying out loud. Man up and teams have to kick it either extremely carefully to a one on one contest or to a pack situation. Its up to the coaches to wake up to the footy that is being played. Simple.

 

[camsmith]

Yep they need to think up something.

------
I love my stats, so i might just share some interesting stats from the Richmond vs Adelaide game that everyone seems to be raving on about.
Thanks to - www.pro-stats.com.au

Long kicks: Richmond 71 - Adelaide 69
Contested Marks: Richmond 17 - Adelaide 11
Disposals Per Scoring Shot: Richmond 19.9 - Adelaide 18.2
Contested Possessions: Richmond 38 - Adelaide 30

So the media and various idiots (Sheedy) are ranting on about Richmonds 'tactics' last Saturday... lets look at each point they make one by one.

1. We chipped the ball around too much (had 2 more long kicks than Crows)

2. We had too many uncontested marks (had 6 more than Crows)

3. We took too long (overpossessed) to get it up forward to score (Had slightly more disposals per scoring shot)

4. We had too many cheap marks and cheap uncontested possessions (had 8 more contested possessions than Adelaide)

------

Some may say the stats lie and the game was ugly and no stats can disprove that.. maybe so, and i agree it was ugly regardless of what the stats say to some extent.

But it isn't AS BAD as everything is saying. Most who are saying we kicked too short, kicked backwards (dont have stats on that) and had easy possessions need to have a look at Adelaide a bit more than Richmond!!!!

And just for those who say we make soooooo many mistakes and anyone who may question we get too many free's

Richmond are ranked 14th in Errors Per Game
Richmond are ranked 15th in Frees For Per Game

More stats here


END OF RANT

 

[lockyno1]

Well said Cam. No need for me to add anything!

 

[meltiger]

*sigh*

 

[CyberKev]

And just for those who say we make soooooo many mistakes and anyone who may question we get too many free's

Richmond are ranked 14th in Errors Per Game

I'd like to know how they classify "errors".

Judd made heaps in the GF yet was only credited with 1.

With Champion Data, we know that their "clanger" assessment is dubious, because it credits the ball deliverer with the alleged error, but generally attributes the error from the receiving end. Hence, if you put a superb pass to a forward and he makes a monumental balls-up of it, the midfielder draws the error. Similarly, if you miskick to space and one of your players just happens to be quick enough to get there first, you're not credited with an error.

I suspect there may be something iffy about Pro-stats "error' category as well.

Not that this detracts from what your saying.

 

[meltiger]

Eddie, can I ask what you would like to have seen from Richmond?

Yes, dumb supporters around us were whinging on Saturday but Incomparable and I certainly knew what was going on and were telling them to shut up all day long.


Adelaide, when they don't have the ball, run all their players in front of the ball, the aim is to create a completely conjested forward line, where it is almost impossible to take a contested mark, let alone score. What the Maestro instructed the players to do in Saturday was hold the ball up at all costs when the Crows did this, what the result fo this SHOULD have been, was that the Adelaide players would then run back to take on the players with the ball, opening up the forward line for Richmond to go forward. At the end of the day, the fact is, Adelaide were the ones who spoiled the contest through their utter refusal to play man on man footy. They continued with their gutless tactic of playing completely unaccountable football.


If the Adelaide players had gone man on man, the contest would have been a completely different spectacle. Blame them, not Richmond. Quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of seeing the games key forwards such as Richo, Tarrant, Riewoldt, Hall etc get molested by 3-4 players every time the ball comes forward because the opposition coach has instructed all of his players to run down to the defensive half of the ground. Terry has found a way to beat the hated flood tactic, and personally, I take my hat my hat off to him for that.
-----------------
On another note, if anyone gets the chance to read the HUN this morning, Terry has given Sheedy one hell of a pasting on a number of points & also justified his use of this tactic.


This has only blown up stupidly in the media since Sunday night because of the medias refusal to attack Essendon. They can just attack Richmond instead and ignore the fact Essendon are failing. Sheedy is trying to use us to hide his own clubs, and his own deficencies.


At the end of the day, the AFL laddder looks like this:
Richmond, won 4 lost 4
Scummers, won 1 lost 7 :lol:


Our senior line up has been decimated and a large number of kids who are probably night quite ready for senior football are playing at the top level, yet our reserve grade side, also playing undermanned as a result, have won more games than they have lost. How many games have the Scummer reserves/kids won? 1-2 :lol:


Now I ask you, which of the two clubs is closer to a premiership???


Enjoy your wooden spoon Sheedy you f**king turd. Let's see how long the bandwagon jumpers stay on board now as the club continues it's downward spiral. Richmond & Collingwood can maintain their membership bases when losing ... What's the bet Essendon can't do the same?

 

[camsmith]

I'd like to know how they classify "errors".

Yeah thats true, i dont know how they judge errors, but they do it for all clubs..so its fair in that way. I've tried looking up to see if they had a definition of an 'error' but couldn't find it anywhere.

Adelaide were the ones who spoiled the contest through their utter refusal to play man on man footy. They continued with their gutless tactic of playing completely unaccountable football.

Yep, it seems people have the idea that we were the ones who are to blame, when Adelaide could have change the way the game went if they went man-on-man.

Usually we look at the team the lost and their style of footy and how it attributed in them losing.. but i guess if Richmond are involved we criticise the winning team for some reason?

On another note, if anyone gets the chance to read the HUN this morning, Terry has given Sheedy one hell of a pasting on a number of points & also justified his use of this tactic.

I liked what he said on SEN when he mentioned the VFL. All he had to ask was how the Bendigo Bombers were going... and how Coburg was going to know which clubs future is looking brighter.

Like i said, the media joined in with Sheeds and did exactly what sheedy wanted them to do, not talk about Essendon being 1-7 :sarcasm: So in that way Sheedy is pretty smart. Or the media is just dumb

 

[meltiger]

Usually we look at the team the lost and their style of footy and how it attributed in them losing.. but i guess if Richmond are involved we criticise the winning team for some reason?

I liked what he said on SEN when he mentioned the VFL. All he had to ask was how the Bendigo Bombers were going... and how Coburg was going to know which clubs future is looking brighter.

Like i said, the media joined in with Sheeds and did exactly what sheedy wanted them to do, not talk about Essendon being 1-7 :sarcasm: So in that way Sheedy is pretty smart. Or the media is just dumb

The media are scared. We finally have a good coach, the club is profitable again and the kids are getting games and are winning some of them.

Richmond is finally on the right track.


Who are the journalists going to pick on once we finally start to make the climb back into the powerful position we should be in?

Essendon? Pfft, The media has scratched the back of this club for far too long to resort to writing scathing articles about them...

 

[camsmith]

Just read the article in the paper... bloody great article!!
People need to take note of this quote;

"What we did on Saturday was much more like fishing.

We threw out a lure for Adelaide to stop flooding numbers behind the ball"

I think the tide could be turning slightly, i've read a few pieces saying it was Craig who should be getting all this attention not Terry. Terry simply employed a tactic that beat the flood. Boring maybe, but the team who floods should be copping the flack.

Paul Roos: "The real problem is Adelaide didn't pick anyone up. I mean, if I was the crowd I would be booing Adelaide, not Richmond - because the only way you can actually chip the ball around is if you've actually got a free player."


Craig the villain in tactics turmoil
Chip Le Grand (The Australian)

FOR two days Terry Wallace has been hailed as either a tactical genius or vilified as the Grinch who stole football. In truth, he is simply a winning coach who can't believe his luck.
If there is a villain from Saturday's extraordinary match between Richmond and Adelaide - a match that has created all manner of weird and wonderful benchmarks for how football should never be played - it is Adelaide coach Neil Craig.

[...]

So what should Adelaide have done? The answer was obvious to any under-10 coach sitting in the stands: push forward, pick up the loose players and win the ball.

[..]

What has been lost in the debate over tactics and aesthetics is other things Richmond did well to put itself in a winning position early in the match. Richmond thrashed the Crows in the clearances and beat them to the contested ball. The Tigers began the match in conventional fashion and kicked the first three goals of the opening quarter

[...]

It is a timely point, given the Richmond-Adelaide game has prompted calls for rule changes and another week of introspection about the evolution of the game. So, if you don't like what you saw on Saturday, blame the coach. But not the one who won.

 

[Tom Shines]

I liked the Wizard Cup rule — marks aren't paid on backward kicks, unless inside the oppostion 50.