One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: one-eyed on April 05, 2010, 12:12:32 AM
-
I know it's hard but fire away .....
-
Cotchin
Martin
Thursfield
Nason
More games into kids
Approx same margin as last year but with less senior players.. in fact take out Simmo who was WOG and the only players older than 23 were Newman & Moore (27 & 26yo)
Better effort/intensity
-
In no particular order.
Cotchin's game
Martin's game
Defensively we are doing okay and making an effort its our skills that are killing us.
More games into kids.
Nason was okay again.
Some players poor performances mean we will hopefully see more kids next week.
About 48 games to go before we will really start to see the rewards of Hardwick's labour.
McGuane showed some heart today.
Losing by 72 points today with kids is better than Hardwick panicking after the Carlton loss and selecting Tuck McMahon and others to inject some experience that would hopefully stem the flow and the pain. This to me suggests he is sticking to his plan and he believes in it.
Next home game is another test to prove or disprove that we are further advanced than what Melbourne are.
-
What they said.
Thoughts Connors had a real crack. Put body on the line and didn't back away. Turned the odd ball over but is gaining confidence and has one of teh better kicks in the team.
Tambling had a dip and did some flashy things, his goal that his missed would have been a really good goal.
Backline was really good IMO won the majority of contested ball in back half.
Morton looked dangerous.
Vickory had a dip without any help from our great white hope of a ruckman.
Newman improved out of sight from round 1 and did some gutsy things.
-
I came away from that game disappointed but as I broke the game down I think there is a lot of positives from that game.
Firstly the game plan is beginning to be adopted by the team. We were great down back and our midfielders were excellent in rolling back into the D50 to clog up opportunities. Conversely, probably due to this, we struggled going forward.
Cotchin was excellent - probably the best full game I have seen him play. If he can continue to build on this his potential will be quickly realized.
Martin had an excellent game also. He made a few mistakes but his attack on the ball, ability to break through packs and out of tackles delivered from sizable WB opponents was extremely impressive. He will be a tough player to match up on in the future as he has all the skills but physical size to win the ball too. He didn't seem overawed either and is quickly accustomizing himself to the pace of the game.
Hislop was a surprise and his attack on the ball and opponents was a shining light and example for all those around him. Had the best game I have seen him play in the yellow and black.
Thursfield had a lot of support from McGuane, Moore and others but he beat Hall hands down. He excels against leading opponents and spoils well.
Nason was much better this week and lacked the debilitating nerves he had last week. He laid some great tackles, kicked well off both sides and looked dangerous at the drop of the ball. Was unlucky not to kick of few but was push off the contest a few times dues to his size (a common problem for ALL our players!)
Post was nervous as all get out and dropped a few easy grabs but continued to present all game. His goal was excellent - nice mark followed by a long straight kick :thumbsup
Simmonds did a good job all night. I have heard a lot of criticism of him since but he contested well and helped us win the clearances despite being beaten almost everywhere else. This has to count for something. Ran out of legs late but certainly justified him place in the team.
Connors was very good. Had 'Connor-like' brain fades a few times where he tried to take on three opponents at once or kick a pinpoint pass which was never going to work and cost us a resulting goal but overall his ball movement and footskills were excellent. Big upside to this lad if he can improve his decision making.
Newman was reasonable and kept Murphy accountable all night.
Other positives were that we did not drop our heads all night, we continued to support each other and work on the game plan. The first half of the year is going to be particularly painful but I think we will find some long terms players fro it in the end.
Stripes
-
The donuts I bought from the Van outside gate 4 were sensational.
Had 4, my daughter had 2.
Highlight of the night :thumbsup
-
Martin getting 8 clearances
cotchins best game in a while
thursfield & mcguane
beating the bulldogs in clearances
-
Vickory looked a little better!
-
Martin getting 8 clearances
cotchins best game in a while
thursfield & mcguane
beating the bulldogs in clearances
Would agree :thumbsup
-
Cotch, Lids and Martin our midfield future
-
I came away from that game disappointed but as I broke the game down I think there is a lot of positives from that game.
Firstly the game plan is beginning to be adopted by the team. We were great down back and our midfielders were excellent in rolling back into the D50 to clog up opportunities. Conversely, probably due to this, we struggled going forward.
Agree, and also think we need another permanent big body up forward to share the load. Poor Jack Reiwoldt copped the 'Richo' attention last night because there was no other big-bodied threat to the defence.
Cotchin was excellent - probably the best full game I have seen him play. If he can continue to build on this his potential will be quickly realized.
Martin had an excellent game also. He made a few mistakes but his attack on the ball, ability to break through packs and out of tackles delivered from sizable WB opponents was extremely impressive. He will be a tough player to match up on in the future as he has all the skills but physical size to win the ball too. He didn't seem overawed either and is quickly accustomizing himself to the pace of the game.
Totally agree.
Hislop was a surprise and his attack on the ball and opponents was a shining light and example for all those around him. Had the best game I have seen him play in the yellow and black.
The number of mistakes he makes is still a worry - he has very average kicking skills and will need to improve this by a fair margin to have any longevity in his career.
Thursfield had a lot of support from McGuane, Moore and others but he beat Hall hands down. He excels against leading opponents and spoils well.
Wish Thursfield could do more than spoil. He was excellent on Hall but still suffers from being a one-trick pony. He needs to develop a run and link-up aspect to his game or his development (and career) will stagnate. Apart from one glaring mistake McGuane was excellent, Moore was good.
Nason was much better this week and lacked the debilitating nerves he had last week. He laid some great tackles, kicked well off both sides and looked dangerous at the drop of the ball. Was unlucky not to kick of few but was push off the contest a few times dues to his size (a common problem for ALL our players!)
Post was nervous as all get out and dropped a few easy grabs but continued to present all game. His goal was excellent - nice mark followed by a long straight kick :thumbsup
Totally agree
Simmonds did a good job all night. I have heard a lot of criticism of him since but he contested well and helped us win the clearances despite being beaten almost everywhere else. This has to count for something. Ran out of legs late but certainly justified him place in the team.
Struggle to agree with this one Stripes. I thought he was the worst player on the ground by a long margin - was just as useless as Graham around the ground and got beaten in the hitouts by the Bulldogs average ruck pair. Vickery was better and showed me for the first time some glimmer of hope that he will be ok. I agreed with the Fox commentators re: Simmonds - put him up forward in the square permanently or get him off - his effective days as a ruckman are over.
Connors was very good. Had 'Connor-like' brain fades a few times where he tried to take on three opponents at once or kick a pinpoint pass which was never going to work and cost us a resulting goal but overall his ball movement and footskills were excellent. Big upside to this lad if he can improve his decision making.
The biggest positive to come out of the game. Made a few mistakes but made them taking the game on - I'll have that all day and twice on Sundays over mistakes being made going backwards. Extremely courageous and did a lot of good things. If he can develop a level cool head to keep his ego in check then he will make it.
Newman was reasonable and kept Murphy accountable all night.
Yep, much improved game from our captain - I reckon he tore himself a new backside after last week's shocker.
Other positives were that we did not drop our heads all night, we continued to support each other and work on the game plan. The first half of the year is going to be particularly painful but I think we will find some long terms players fro it in the end.
Yep, we stuck to the game plan for a lot longer and in a much better manner last night - there was definite improvement from last week even though the scoreboard might suggest otherwise.
-
Simmonds did a good job all night. I have heard a lot of criticism of him since but he contested well and helped us win the clearances despite being beaten almost everywhere else. This has to count for something. Ran out of legs late but certainly justified him place in the team.
Struggle to agree with this one Stripes. I thought he was the worst player on the ground by a long margin - was just as useless as Graham around the ground and got beaten in the hitouts by the Bulldogs average ruck pair. Vickery was better and showed me for the first time some glimmer of hope that he will be ok. I agreed with the Fox commentators re: Simmonds - put him up forward in the square permanently or get him off - his effective days as a ruckman are over.
Simmonds had the most hit outs of the game more than both of the other two WB ruckmen. I understand he was in the ruck longer than the other two but until we have someone to replace him he will need to keep taking the brunt of the ruck body work to protect the younger rucks. I guess around the ground he will be a liability but what other option do we have?
Agree completely with all your other comments especially your last comment - much better game for our future despite the score pointing in the other direction
Stripes
-
Simmonds had the most hit outs of the game more than both of the other two WB ruckmen. I understand he was in the ruck longer than the other two but until we have someone to replace him he will need to keep taking the brunt of the ruck body work to protect the younger rucks. I guess around the ground he will be a liability but what other option do we have?
Play Browne, Vickery and Graham. Simmonds was just terrible IMHO - 15 hitouts (which most went to the opposition), 8 disposals, 0 marks. Hudson (who I rate as average at best) had 14 hitouts (most to advantage) 16 disposals and 3 marks. Minson (who is no better than Hudson) played most of the game up forward, had 11 hitouts, 8 disposals and took 6 marks. The difference in impact on the game between all 3 could not have been more stark. Yes, Simmonds might be protecting the young bodies but he is just as counter-productive by providing little link-up or support to the midfield and contests around the ground. We are playing our good kids through the midfield but they are not going to learn anything by playing follow the leader to the opposition mids who get the ball shoved down their throats on a regular basis. At the season start I was fully supportive and understanding of the need for Simmonds in the team but I have changed my mind after watching the reality of it. He is not giving us enough tangible benefits by playing him - I would now go with playing all 3 talls on a rotational basis so they don't tire as much in the game and are able to compete for longer, while they learn their craft and develop working combinations with their midfield peers.
-
Getting a bit sick of trying to find positives amongst a pile crap, really we have to stop kidding ourselves. We lost the game YET AGAIN in the first 10 minutes of the game in the first qtr. To single out half a dozen players out of 22 and say that they are our positives is a bit of a joke actually.
Our overall level of skill is shocking, the worst I have ever seen in my life, even when players standard kicks were torpedo's their level of skill was better. Our decision making was also shocking, we have no ruck, no forward set up and overall our players look like they are from the land of umpa lumpa's (very very small).
Our players are easily thrown off the ball, bumped off the ball, knocked over, out marked and generally out played.
Like I said to find half a dozen decent players out of 22 is just stupid but McGuane, Connors, Morton, Thursty and maybe a couple more were serviceable and thats about it.
Deledio, Martin and Cotchin were smashed to pieces in the first 2 and a half qtrs, the Dogs had just about every centre clearance, it was a joke to watch. Even Hird, Healy and Taylor commented that we hadn't had a clearance and we were getting killed.
Sorry but someone had to say it and these are my thoughts. ;D
-
intersting i think i counted 4 occasions where a tigers player was taken out of a contest with just a swivel of the hips of the doggies player
-
Getting a bit sick of trying to find positives amongst a pile crap, really we have to stop kidding ourselves. We lost the game YET AGAIN in the first 10 minutes of the game in the first qtr. To single out half a dozen players out of 22 and say that they are our positives is a bit of a joke actually.
Our overall level of skill is shocking, the worst I have ever seen in my life, even when players standard kicks were torpedo's their level of skill was better. Our decision making was also shocking, we have no ruck, no forward set up and overall our players look like they are from the land of umpa lumpa's (very very small).
Our players are easily thrown off the ball, bumped off the ball, knocked over, out marked and generally out played.
Like I said to find half a dozen decent players out of 22 is just stupid but McGuane, Connors, Morton, Thursty and maybe a couple more were serviceable and thats about it.
Deledio, Martin and Cotchin were smashed to pieces in the first 2 and a half qtrs, the Dogs had just about every centre clearance, it was a joke to watch. Even Hird, Healy and Taylor commented that we hadn't had a clearance and we were getting killed.
Sorry but someone had to say it and these are my thoughts. ;D
would agree
-
Sorry but someone had to say it and these are my thoughts. ;D
would agree
[/quote]
Oh Well either wallow in a well of self pity or go support a new team.
It is going to be a long rough road and we need to toughen, so take off your skirts girls
-
Sorry but someone had to say it and these are my thoughts. ;D
would agree
Oh Well either wallow in a well of self pity or go support a new team.
It is going to be a long rough road and we need to toughen, so take off your skirts girls
[/quote]
Excuse me.
Its been a long haul for 30 years now.
We went throiugh doom and gloom in the late 80,s with rebuilding etc.
Can tell you that we are in a worser state (footy wise ) than they late 80,s :banghead
-
Sorry but someone had to say it and these are my thoughts. ;D
would agree
Oh Well either wallow in a well of self pity or go support a new team.
It is going to be a long rough road and we need to toughen, so take off your skirts girls
[/quote]
Don't tell me to go and support another team because I have a view, apparenty this is a forum as I am reminded of continuously. We know what the road ahead is like but at the moment we are not even on the road thats all I am saying!!
Perhaps some of our players should take their skirts off and toughen up!!
-
Interesting on 3AW at the moment, been talking about the midgets we have .Nahas Tambling
David King says Tambling not up to it :banghead :banghead
List is as bad as Fitzroy back in the 80,and 90,s
-
Interesting on 3AW at the moment, been talking about the midgets we have .Nahas Tambling
David King says Tambling not up to it :banghead :banghead
List is as bad as Fitzroy back in the 80,and 90,s
Funny how everyone else other than a certain few will actually admit or comment on the state of our club list. Being compared to that Fitzroy side is not good, even though we are heading down the rebuilding road. We need to leave the smaller players out, they can't possibly be our future regardless of age. Play Tuck, Polak, Polo, Webberly, just get some height back in the team for crying out loud.
-
Have to play Tuck next week
-
Have to play Tuck next week
Dead right, he should have been played from round one, never mind playing the kids all the time when they are no good.
-
You can either lose with the kids who at least have a chance of coming good or lose with playing Tuck in the side, a player that won't be a
a part of our future.
-
You can either lose with the kids who at least have a chance of coming good or lose with playing Tuck in the side, a player that won't be a
a part of our future.
Do you really think Edwards and King are going to come good after all this time?? I don't believe either of those players are our future, but if you feel they will be part of our next premiership team in 15 more years ;) than thats your right. In the mean time we may as well play Tuck as he is better than both Edwards and King put together IMO.
-
_____________________________flatlined___________________________________
-
Can Tuck grow a brain and a team mentality?
-
Sorry but someone had to say it and these are my thoughts. ;D
would agree
Oh Well either wallow in a well of self pity or go support a new team.
It is going to be a long rough road and we need to toughen, so take off your skirts girls
Excuse me.
Its been a long haul for 30 years now.
We went throiugh doom and gloom in the late 80,s with rebuilding etc.
Can tell you that we are in a worser state (footy wise ) than they late 80,s :banghead[/quote]
The fact we've been poor for 30 years is irrelevant, we can't just click our fingers and make everything better
and "worser" isn't a word
-
Infamy , your a D/head
You know what I mean.
On 3AW today it was interesting as they liken us to Fitzroy now.
With the draft being compromised from here on, we are in trouble.
Why we have recruited small players as recent as the last draft is beyond belief. ::)
Nason, good player, way too small,.
Have a rookie in Hicks who should be riding at the Valley today.
Its mistake after mistake at Punt Road,
Watched Craig Cameron at 3/4 time yesterday involved with postional changes on the whiteboard.
Who is running the place ?????? :banghead
Went and watched Coburg for a half on saturday, went home at half time in disgust.
The prediction in the Herald Sun was for Coburg to finish last, I can see why.
Might further add we are going anywhere until we field a stand alone reserves team, but some bright spark has made decision to cement the alignment with Coburg :banghead
-
Sorry but someone had to say it and these are my thoughts. ;D
would agree
Oh Well either wallow in a well of self pity or go support a new team.
It is going to be a long rough road and we need to toughen, so take off your skirts girls
Excuse me.
Its been a long haul for 30 years now.
We went throiugh doom and gloom in the late 80,s with rebuilding etc.
Can tell you that we are in a worser state (footy wise ) than they late 80,s :banghead
The fact we've been poor for 30 years is irrelevant, we can't just click our fingers and make everything better
and "worser" isn't a word
[/quote]
so you knew what he was saying
when did you become a English teacher :shh
-
Infamy , your a D/head
You know what I mean.
On 3AW today it was interesting as they liken us to Fitzroy now.
With the draft being compromised from here on, we are in trouble.
Why we have recruited small players as recent as the last draft is beyond belief. ::)
Nason, good player, way too small,.
Have a rookie in Hicks who should be riding at the Valley today.
Its mistake after mistake at Punt Road,
Watched Craig Cameron at 3/4 time yesterday involved with postional changes on the whiteboard.
Who is running the place ?????? :banghead
Went and watched Coburg for a half on saturday, went home at half time in disgust.
The prediction in the Herald Sun was for Coburg to finish last, I can see why.
Might further add we are going anywhere until we field a stand alone reserves team, but some bright spark has made decision to cement the alignment with Coburg :banghead
Probably because they know the reaction they will get out of Chicken Little's like you more than anything.
-
Why we have recruited small players as recent as the last draft is beyond belief. ::)
Nason, good player, way too small,.
Have a rookie in Hicks who should be riding at the Valley today.
Its not like we only recruited smalls, we got a few kpps too
I'd prefer we take the player we think is most likely to make it as an AFL player than just picking a tall just for the sake of drafting more talls
-
although you cant keep playing them all.
Saints play Milne and thats it.
We play several thus we end up with miss matches that kill us, as the opponents just brush as aside.
As was the case last night
-
although you cant keep playing them all.
Saints play Milne and thats it.
We play several thus we end up with miss matches that kill us, as the opponents just brush as aside.
As was the case last night
Baker
-
although you cant keep playing them all.
Saints play Milne and thats it.
We play several thus we end up with miss matches that kill us, as the opponents just brush as aside.
As was the case last night
Baker
Baker is tough, we aint
-
Might further add we are going anywhere until we field a stand alone reserves team, but some bright spark has made decision to cement the alignment with Coburg :banghead
What do you mean "cement" the alignment
I am intrigued ;D
-
Funny how the last 30 years and talk of small players are positives.
Cant wait to see the Negatives for last night game post.
Maybe a few of you dark clouds should buy a dictionary
-
My positives:
We never let the Dogs get a run on, it was a 72 point thumping, but it was gradual. It wasn't a first half blitz, like Melbourne in round 1 or the Kangas in round 2 in which the game was over at half-time. We were only 31 down at half-time and had we kicked a little straighter in the 2nd term it could have been under 3 goals.
The defence worked pretty well I thought. The Dogs had 71 inside 50's. They were inaccurate, but I recall them not getting too many 'easy' shots on goals. A lot were long bombs or shots from the boundary.
Our pressure made the Dogs' skill look ordinary at times in the first half. Media reports say that they were uncharacteristic errors by the Dogs, but it was the zone and pressure from us. The media just won't acknowledge that.
The players were having a real crack and didn't drop their heads.
We will beat Melbourne! :thumbsup
-
Thursty and Mcguane were very good
Martin and Cotchin were very good
Tambling and Edwards played better and with more confidence
Connors played pretty well again
Vickery was solid
Morton was pretty good but outsized again
Newman and Deledio were good
Nason and Moore were solid
Reiwoldt and Post will improve
King and Nahas will be replaced by Cousins and Roberts
-
the backline was fairly good :rollin how anyone come up with that :gobdrop
we got thumped by 70+ points thats not good ;D sounds like some are satisfied
-
With Bowden Brown Johnson Couglan and the lord Richo we might have lost by 55
We are where we are and it was the right choice, lets back the boys
-
With Bowden Brown Johnson Couglan and the lord Richo we might have lost by 55
We are where we are and it was the right choice, lets back the boys
Good point Suffered....I feel the same way
-
Well the last thing any of us wanted at the end of 09 was more of the same, and we knew what it would cost
-
the backline was fairly good :rollin how anyone come up with that :gobdrop
we got thumped by 70+ points thats not good ;D sounds like some are satisfied
Maybe because the Dogs had 71 inside 50s thanks to consistent turnovers from us going forward and if the backline didn't play so well in stopping the constant barrage the margin would have been more like 120 points, not 70 points.
-
the backline was fairly good :rollin how anyone come up with that :gobdrop
we got thumped by 70+ points thats not good ;D sounds like some are satisfied
Maybe because the Dogs had 71 inside 50s thanks to consistent turnovers from us going forward and if the backline didn't play so well in stopping the constant barrage the margin would have been more like 120 points, not 70 points.
Yep. :thumbsup