One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: one-eyed on April 08, 2013, 04:29:18 PM
-
The only club that had less tackles than us on the weekend was bruise free footy Melbourne. We averaged under 2 tackles per player for the whole game against the Saints. About the only main criticism you can make so far is tackling stats are low.
Plenty has been said and written, but we'll concentrate on one aspect: Tackling. The Demons had just 35. The rest of the comp went as follows: Hawthorn 65, West Coast 52, Collingwood 62, Carlton 64, Geelong 72, North Melbourne 72, Port Adelaide 55, GWS 53, Essendon 61, Brisbane 65, Adelaide 59, Sydney 73, Gold Coast 63, Western Bulldogs 61, Fremantle 63, St Kilda 55 and Richmond a lowly 41. Out of all that, only Richmond was the surprise.
http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/the-tackle-collingwood-is-everything-the-hapless-dees-are-not/story-stuff-1226614439926
-
What was the possession count? We seemed to dominate general play outside of centre clearances. If we had more of the ball that would explain it a bit. You can't tackle guys without the ball unless you're Jones and you're tackling Cotchin. >:(
-
Matters not if we are winning ;)
-
Grigg.
Houli.
:whistle
-
What was the possession count? We seemed to dominate general play outside of centre clearances. If we had more of the ball that would explain it a bit. You can't tackle guys without the ball unless you're Jones and you're tackling Cotchin. >:(
Essendon had about 5000 more possessions than the dee's and still managed 61 tackles.
Article is right, we need to lift our tackle count... no matter what spin you put on it, it is too low. Houli is a player I have backed the whole time hes been here but 0 tackles over the first 2 weeks is just disgusting and needs addressing
-
Matters not if we are winning ;)
Yeh sort of agreeGrigg.
Houli.
:whistle
Definitely agree
-
Matters not if we are winning ;)
Yeh sort of agreeGrigg.
Houli.
:whistle
Definitely agree
Definitely agree too
-
first to the ball means u have less tackles
means nothing tackle count if u are first to the ball and win clearances and contested footy
-
first to the ball means u have less tackles
means nothing tackle count if u are first to the ball and win clearances and contested footy
True but on Friday we didn't win the clearances and that is bigger concern than our tackle count IMHO
-
first to the ball means u have less tackles
means nothing tackle count if u are first to the ball and win clearances and contested footy
it means something when its that low
-
first to the ball means u have less tackles
means nothing tackle count if u are first to the ball and win clearances and contested footy
True but on Friday we didn't win the clearances and that is bigger concern than our tackle count IMHO
centre clearances we were smashed but thats not because we didnt tackle its because our mids were roving to maric and maric was owned, they were very stupid on friday night
-
first to the ball means u have less tackles
means nothing tackle count if u are first to the ball and win clearances and contested footy
it means something when its that low
means jack poo just like inside 50 stat
we often won inside 50 stats and got smashed in the past
get to the ball first and maintain possession u will never have high tackle counts
its tackling when it matters that counts
holding the ball inside fwd 50 for example
if we get to the ball first and make the play how the stuff will we have higher tackle counts
teams the play from behind and get to the ball second have high counts
quality not quantity just like inside 50s
-
first to the ball means u have less tackles
means nothing tackle count if u are first to the ball and win clearances and contested footy
True but on Friday we didn't win the clearances and that is bigger concern than our tackle count IMHO
Agree Wiiliam and furthermore X Bombers were first to the ball all night and got 61 tackles. Whilst I love our endeavour need to get our tackle count higher. May not cost us this weekend against the Dogs but it may cost us savagely against the Pies Dockers and Cats in subsequent weeksafter that if not addressed properly.
-
if they tackled so much it means the dees got to ball first then shat themselves
cant judge the bombers on that game
-
first to the ball means u have less tackles
means nothing tackle count if u are first to the ball and win clearances and contested footy
it means something when its that low
means jack poo just like inside 50 stat
we often won inside 50 stats and got smashed in the past
get to the ball first and maintain possession u will never have high tackle counts
its tackling when it matters that counts
holding the ball inside fwd 50 for example
if we get to the ball first and make the play how the stuff will we have higher tackle counts
teams the play from behind and get to the ball second have high counts
quality not quantity just like inside 50s
Its 40 stuffing tackles X, stop defending the undefendable, its too low and we need to lift. Window dress it all you want, but end of the day its not good enough.
and your having a laff re melbourne getting to the ball first against the bombers.
-
did we win or lose
end of story
-
no team will get 60 plus tackles a week
its a two way street
u play a team that plays one on one u get more tackles
the opposition have a lot to do with tackles with how they play
ffs get over it tackle counts mean nothing when u r winning and get the ball first
-
did we win or lose
end of story
not the point, seasons only 2 games old but just putting it out there that I hope this is not a trend bc if it is, I guarantee you we wont be playing finals with 40 tackles a week.
There was a kick in it against the blues, if we lost that does it all of a sudden become an issue?
-
I've been concerned with this in both matches I've attended this year, last week especially concerned as I recall the number of tackles to half time was very low.
As the game unfolds and you see the opposition clearing the defensive zone with ease or the centre clearances are a free for all with no tackling pressure it is always a concern for me.
Or the defense is struggling to punish the ball getter and its an easy shot at goal.
This rubbish soft pansy footy won't cut it come finals time.
All of Sundays games had potential finalists with finals like atmosphere about them.
The Geelong v Roos game averaging in the 70s and the carl v coll game ave in the 60s for both teams.
The discrepancy was the Hawks v WC game with the hawks having more tackles.
Watching that game the dawks were far more ferocious when it came to the contest not just chasing tail, but against the odds the dawks came away with a big win.
I know that some may think its a misleading stat which may be true. But like I said if your ferocious once the opposition do get the ball then they'll always be rushed and turnovers are more likely.
In the first 2 games not only have our tackle counts been extremely low, it just seems too bloody easy for the opposition once they've got the pill with the lack of pressure and ferocious tacking.
Far too pansy softie footy for my liking.
-
didnt we have the most scoring opportunities from turnovers in rnd 1?
-
no team will get 60 plus tackles a week
its a two way street
u play a team that plays one on one u get more tackles
the opposition have a lot to do with tackles with how they play
ffs get over it tackle counts mean nothing when u r winning and get the ball first
http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_team_rankings?year=2012&type=TA&sby=6 (http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_team_rankings?year=2012&type=TA&sby=6)
Really?
last year 12 teams averaged 60+ tackles for the season,
17 teams averaged 58 or more
Only GC was way off with 54.
If we were 2nd last in tackles with 50ish a week I wouldnt be concerned but when you see these numbers... 40 is... not good.
-
wow and how many of those teams won the grand final
wow weee
and we thumped both finals teams
as I said meaningless stat
-
wow and how many of those teams won the grand final
wow weee
and we thumped both finals teams
as I said meaningless stat
You said no one can lay60+ tackles a week and I just showed you that 12 did last year and another 5 sides got within 2 of 60, so quite clearly the trend is that all teams bar 1 were up around the 60+ tackles a week... and thats you response? ;D
I've had enough of arguing with ***** to last me a while so i'll stop now and go and enjoy GOT.
-
What was the possession count? We seemed to dominate general play outside of centre clearances. If we had more of the ball that would explain it a bit. You can't tackle guys without the ball unless you're Jones and you're tackling Cotchin. >:(
Essendon had about 5000 more possessions than the dee's and still managed 61 tackles.
Article is right, we need to lift our tackle count... no matter what spin you put on it, it is too low. Houli is a player I have backed the whole time hes been here but 0 tackles over the first 2 weeks is just disgusting and needs addressing
FWIW I don't disagree. Grigg needs to lay a tackle too rather than corralling a bloke.
-
while important what is an even bigger concern is the overall skillset. the lack of polish has always been an issue and it will remain an issue win lose or draw.
if we dont dramatically improve these two areas there are going to be some real upset tiger ferals about the place. just a matter of time.
-
first to the ball means u have less tackles
means nothing tackle count if u are first to the ball and win clearances and contested footy
True but on Friday we didn't win the clearances and that is bigger concern than our tackle count IMHO
Agree. Only reason Saints were in the game was because they kept winning the clearances
-
The dogs can easily beat us.
When teams have ran hard and played a run and carry game we haven't been able to stop the momentum.
We could be regarded as a very soft team when teams work out they can pressure us at the stoppages and then run and carry the ball.
Our games this year paint a disturbing picture:
Nab cup
Richmond v melbourne 8 tackles in a half game
Richmond v kangaroos 20 tackles in half a game
Richmond v essendon 40 tackles in full game
Richmond v hawthorn 40 tackles in full game
Home & away
Richmond v Carlton 40 tackles
Richmond v Stkilda 41 tackles
We may be able to get away with this softie type of footy against teams that are around our level or below but this soft lolly pop poofter footy won't wash against the hard teams in the comp.
We don't want to be regarded as eggs again do we?
Harden up Tigers!
-
A slight improvement today but still way off in my opinion
Hawks & pies have 40 a piece to half time.
Unless we become a fierce tackling beast & pressure the opposition we won't cut against the big boys.
-
when you dominate general play like we did today you wont rack up big tackle numbers.
without seeing the numbers i thought our pressure and tackling was pretty good today
-
dont really care about the stats 3-0 low counts all year if these results keep happening
-
when you dominate general play like we did today you wont rack up big tackle numbers.
without seeing the numbers i thought our pressure and tackling was pretty good today
fully concur
-
Tracking very nicely, Tackled where we had to, dominated in the air didn't really need to tackle too much, were mostly first to the ball even if they kicked it... We are adapting nicely to each opponent and getting a bit stronger each week, next week is gonna be a corker. Hope the dawks run em ragged for us.
-
when you dominate general play like we did today you wont rack up big tackle numbers.
without seeing the numbers i thought our pressure and tackling was pretty good today
Dead right Al. You can't rack up big tackle numbers when you have such overwhelming possession numbers. I also thought our pressure and tackling today was first rate, and was the single biggest factor in our win. Doggies never got an easy kick all day!
-
when you dominate general play like we did today you wont rack up big tackle numbers.
without seeing the numbers i thought our pressure and tackling was pretty good today
gotta agree also and im one who has a concern about the tackling.
to be honest the lack of pressure on us makes it hard to gauge just how good that performance was. but credit to them i thought we played some good footy for probably the first time this preseason and season. and one reason for this was our tackling and pressure.
we have had a pretty easy start to the yr come next week if we fail to put enough pressure on collingwood we will be looking rather silly. we still need vast improvement in several areas.
bring on the real tests like collingwood sydney wce freo etc i say. start winning our fair share of these types of games and even i will shut up.
-
start winning our fair share of these types of games and even i will shut up.
I've just logged on to my Betfair account but can't seem to get a Lay bet on this happening!
;D
-
Our tackling and pressure was fine today. Big improvement on the first 2 weeks imo. Dome is also a fast track. Will go up a few notches over the next few weeks
-
when you dominate general play like we did today you wont rack up big tackle numbers.
without seeing the numbers i thought our pressure and tackling was pretty good today
Dead right Al. You can't rack up big tackle numbers when you have such overwhelming possession numbers. I also thought our pressure and tackling today was first rate, and was the single biggest factor in our win. Doggies never got an easy kick all day!
Agree gents, was one thing that really stood out beign at the game today. Some of those mentioned in Crawfords article obviously read it :rollin
-
What I found quite interesting is this stat
*Ranked 2nd in least Opponent Tackles Per Game
So we average 43.7 tackles per game, our opponents only average 49.7
-
What I found quite interesting is this stat
*Ranked 2nd in least Opponent Tackles Per Game
So we average 43.7 tackles per game, our opponents only average 49.7
Where's our Kicking Efficiency. We are such a good uncontested team that gets into space and has a tonne of the footy. Can;t tackle when you have it and when we use our kicking skills and hit targets the other team cant tackle us.
-
What I found quite interesting is this stat
*Ranked 2nd in least Opponent Tackles Per Game
So we average 43.7 tackles per game, our opponents only average 49.7
Where's our Kicking Efficiency. We are such a good uncontested team that gets into space and has a tonne of the footy. Can;t tackle when you have it and when we use our kicking skills and hit targets the other team cant tackle us.
72.4% disposal efficiency. Ranked 2nd behind Saints and above Bulldogs.
I think its less to do with our kicking skills (which also probably contributes) but because we spread as much as we do for uncontested footy other teams also get that freedom and their uncontested number rises for games against us making it harder to tackle but they also don't get as much chance to tackle us.
-
I like the way Concs tackles.
-
I like the way Concs tackles.
They stay tackled
Big fan of the red wog
-
long live the wog
-
I know the term elite is over done. But I am now confident conca will reach this.
-
I understand what you all are saying but if we don't start putting some real pressure on the opposition it will be our undoing.
Like Ive said before, its all good when we play teams around or below us. But this soft limp wristed footy won't cut it come finals time. That's when you get found out playing so free and easy uncontested footy. The tough teams will pull your pants down.
To me its a concern but i suppose the next three weeks will be a great test for us.
-
What I found quite interesting is this stat
*Ranked 2nd in least Opponent Tackles Per Game
So we average 43.7 tackles per game, our opponents only average 49.7
Nice pickup :cheers
-
I understand what you all are saying but if we don't start putting some real pressure on the opposition it will be our undoing.
Like Ive said before, its all good when we play teams around or below us. But this soft limp wristed footy won't cut it come finals time. That's when you get found out playing so free and easy uncontested footy. The tough teams will pull your pants down.
To me its a concern but i suppose the next three weeks will be a great test for us.
I sort of agree. If the opposition start pushing 60 tackles against us, I don't want us trailing with 43-44 tackles I want us around the same mark. But if the game is played on our terms we don't need huge tackle numbers so I guess it just depends, when the pressure is on can we adapt and put on big tackling stats?
Out of curiosity, considering our high uncontested style of footy, what would you like our tackling numbers to be? Would you prefer us to shift to contested and get even more tackles? Or are you happy with uncontested as long as we hike the tackles up to the 50 mark?
-
I understand what you all are saying but if we don't start putting some real pressure on the opposition it will be our undoing.
Like Ive said before, its all good when we play teams around or below us. But this soft limp wristed footy won't cut it come finals time. That's when you get found out playing so free and easy uncontested footy. The tough teams will pull your pants down.
To me its a concern but i suppose the next three weeks will be a great test for us.
did you actaly watch the game on the weekend or just look at the stats Monday morning.
-
I understand what you all are saying but if we don't start putting some real pressure on the opposition it will be our undoing.
Like Ive said before, its all good when we play teams around or below us. But this soft limp wristed footy won't cut it come finals time. That's when you get found out playing so free and easy uncontested footy. The tough teams will pull your pants down.
To me its a concern but i suppose the next three weeks will be a great test for us.
did you actaly watch the game on the weekend or just look at the stats Monday morning.
Al, that is as lazy a post as Mr Tigras.
Of course there will be more pressure acts in finals football - playing the Pies on the weekend will be a great test on our ability to absorb that pressure.
Collingwood are a much better side than the Bullies so they will pile on the pressure - it will be interesting to see if we are able to absorb it.
By contrast, our pressure on the Bullies was fantastic - they barely got a stat away with out being under severe duress.
It's whether we can handle the massive step up in intensity for 100 minutes.
Tell you what, get off to a good start Tigers and that last qtr against the Hawks might start to get contagious. Pies looked lost.
-
I understand what you all are saying but if we don't start putting some real pressure on the opposition it will be our undoing.
Like Ive said before, its all good when we play teams around or below us. But this soft limp wristed footy won't cut it come finals time. That's when you get found out playing so free and easy uncontested footy. The tough teams will pull your pants down.
To me its a concern but i suppose the next three weeks will be a great test for us.
I sort of agree. If the opposition start pushing 60 tackles against us, I don't want us trailing with 43-44 tackles I want us around the same mark. But if the game is played on our terms we don't need huge tackle numbers so I guess it just depends, when the pressure is on can we adapt and put on big tackling stats?
Out of curiosity, considering our high uncontested style of footy, what would you like our tackling numbers to be? Would you prefer us to shift to contested and get even more tackles? Or are you happy with uncontested as long as we hike the tackles up to the 50 mark?
These are interesting questions YR.
Questions I might be able to answer better after the next three weeks are completed.
But I'll give them a go:
I would think any team would be expecting an average of 60 tackles per game.
I've haven't got an issue with our game style but you must remember we haven't played finals for a long time. I don't think any of our current list has had any finals experience.
What you notice during finals footy is that its mostly man on man and the whole game is contested.
Hawthorn play a similar game style as us. But in last years grand final against the swans it was man on man pressure contested footy and the better team at contested footy ended up winning.
-
I understand what you all are saying but if we don't start putting some real pressure on the opposition it will be our undoing.
Like Ive said before, its all good when we play teams around or below us. But this soft limp wristed footy won't cut it come finals time. That's when you get found out playing so free and easy uncontested footy. The tough teams will pull your pants down.
To me its a concern but i suppose the next three weeks will be a great test for us.
did you actaly watch the game on the weekend or just look at the stats Monday morning.
Al, that is as lazy a post as Mr Tigras.
Of course there will be more pressure acts in finals football - playing the Pies on the weekend will be a great test on our ability to absorb that pressure.
Collingwood are a much better side than the Bullies so they will pile on the pressure - it will be interesting to see if we are able to absorb it.
By contrast, our pressure on the Bullies was fantastic - they barely got a stat away with out being under severe duress.
It's whether we can handle the massive step up in intensity for 100 minutes.
Tell you what, get off to a good start Tigers and that last qtr against the Hawks might start to get contagious. Pies looked lost.
I agree with you Y&B this week will be a massive test.
I would be happy if we can play the whole game on our terms and smash them just as we smashed the dogs.
But I still believe you won't get away with it come finals time.
-
I understand what you all are saying but if we don't start putting some real pressure on the opposition it will be our undoing.
Like Ive said before, its all good when we play teams around or below us. But this soft limp wristed footy won't cut it come finals time. That's when you get found out playing so free and easy uncontested footy. The tough teams will pull your pants down.
To me its a concern but i suppose the next three weeks will be a great test for us.
did you actaly watch the game on the weekend or just look at the stats Monday morning.
I was there Al.
The pressure was great on an inexperienced team that doesn't take much to show up their lack of skill.
We really showed them up it was quite obvious which team had more polish, poise and talent.
I'm looking forward to Saturdays game though which will be a great test for us.
I will be there in the hope we smash them too. :gotigers
-
Today is exactly why I found this concerning. Need to harden up a bit across the board and get more physical more often. 2 tackles in about 25mins of football in the 3rd qtr.
-
Today is exactly why I found this concerning. Need to harden up a bit across the board and get more physical more often. 2 tackles in about 25mins of football in the 3rd qtr.
I couldn't count the amount of times we went to ground whilst attempting to tackle meanwhile letting our opponents go on their merry way
-
for the first quarter and at the start and end of the 2nd our tackling and pressure was good.
In the third we wilted under the pressure they applied to us and naturally our pressure on them dropped off, as well as nearly every other aspect of our game.
In the first half they seemed to get a lot of uncontested possessions across their half back line but then we constantly caused turnovers across our half back. it was hard to tell on the TV why this happened and if it was the plan or just the way it worked out?
-
33 seems to be a pitiful number of tackles Not even 2 each ::)
-
for the first quarter and at the start and end of the 2nd our tackling and pressure was good.
In the third we wilted under the pressure they applied to us and naturally our pressure on them dropped off, as well as nearly every other aspect of our game.
In the first half they seemed to get a lot of uncontested possessions across their half back line but then we constantly caused turnovers across our half back. it was hard to tell on the TV why this happened and if it was the plan or just the way it worked out?
Changed your mind after today's game it seems Al?
Ive been banging on about my concerns after the first game and every win we've had.
Ive said you can get away with this softie girly lollipop footy against teams around and below us but play the seasoned finals teams and theyll pull down your pants like the pies did today.
And you asked me if I watched the games. Pffft!
I could bloody see this coming.....
Question is do you go to games???
-
for the first quarter and at the start and end of the 2nd our tackling and pressure was good.
In the third we wilted under the pressure they applied to us and naturally our pressure on them dropped off, as well as nearly every other aspect of our game.
In the first half they seemed to get a lot of uncontested possessions across their half back line but then we constantly caused turnovers across our half back. it was hard to tell on the TV why this happened and if it was the plan or just the way it worked out?
Changed your mind after today's game it seems Al?
Ive been banging on about my concerns after the first game and every win we've had.
Ive said you can get away with this softie girly lollipop footy against teams around and below us but play the seasoned finals teams and theyll pull down your pants like the pies did today.
And you asked me if I watched the games. Pffft!
I could bloody see this coming.....
Question is do you go to games???
changed my mind? what drugs are you on. you seem to to change your mind all the time. one minute you say last week we improved then you say you could see it coming coming.
I asked if you went to games because you made a post that indicated you thought we continually were poor in this area, straight after a game in which we put in a good display. when questioned you made a statement that you acknowledged this, yet still said that if we continue play an unaccountable way, so which was it?.
so you were at the game? are you saying even though you were at the game, you think the only area we fell down in in the third was tackling. besides that every thing we did was hunky dory?
as ox would say.
You uneducated imbecile.
Kiss my ass.
:rollin :rollin
Vintage Ox :thumbsup
Just out of curiosity, would you say 50 is an acceptable tackle count.
-
for the first quarter and at the start and end of the 2nd our tackling and pressure was good.
In the third we wilted under the pressure they applied to us and naturally our pressure on them dropped off, as well as nearly every other aspect of our game.
In the first half they seemed to get a lot of uncontested possessions across their half back line but then we constantly caused turnovers across our half back. it was hard to tell on the TV why this happened and if it was the plan or just the way it worked out?
Changed your mind after today's game it seems Al?
Ive been banging on about my concerns after the first game and every win we've had.
Ive said you can get away with this softie girly lollipop footy against teams around and below us but play the seasoned finals teams and theyll pull down your pants like the pies did today.
And you asked me if I watched the games. Pffft!
I could bloody see this coming.....
Question is do you go to games???
changed my mind? what drugs are you on. you seem to to change your mind all the time. one minute you say last week we improved then you say you could see it coming coming.
I asked if you went to games because you made a post that indicated you thought we continually were poor in this area, straight after a game in which we put in a good display. when questioned you made a statement that you acknowledged this, yet still said that if we continue play an unaccountable way, so which was it?.
so you were at the game? are you saying even though you were at the game, you think the only area we fell down in in the third was tackling. besides that every thing we did was hunky dory?
as ox would say.
You uneducated imbecile.
Kiss my ass.
:rollin :rollin
Vintage Ox :thumbsup
Just out of curiosity, would you say 50 is an acceptable tackle count.
We are like an egg.
Break the shell and its all soft and gooey inside.
Let's hope they learn something from this game and improve this area because we won't be able to stand when finals come around.
We will get our pants pulled down. Fact!
Soft footy won't cut it as Paul Roos acknowledged today.
Its not just the tackling count its the pressure acts also.
We need to change and become a hardened tough no compromise footy team.
Its very important in my opinion.
Our first two weeks were painting a concerning picture and even though we improved this against the dogs you must agree that they are very young and inexperienced team and easily pushed aside as we once were.
So yes we improved but we were only as good as the limited pressure applied by a team in development mode.
Today was hopefuly a wake up call.
I think it's important anyway.
-
of course its important, just as absorbing the opponents pressure is important. As i said, in the third quarter we wilted and all aspects of our game went out the window, not just our tackling.
do you want to answer the question, would 50 have been an acceptable tackle count?
-
4 in a q where you are chasing tail is simply unacceptable and shows a carltonesque down hill skiing type of effort.
And we all know what happens to down hill skiers.
-
Yea im concerned about it, might open up for vlas :shh
-
Maybe we might get some focus on a couple of the soft downhill skiers we traded into the club
-
We're still last for tackles in the AFL with 51.5 per game (AFL avg. 61).
Dusty is our most efficient tackler with 70% of his tackles sticking.
Who are the League's best tacklers?
By Mark Macgugan and Sam Russell
afl.com.au
Friday, May 24, 2013
(http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/AFL/Files/Images/Unknown359.png)
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-05-24/who-are-the-leagues-best-tacklers
-
Another low tackling game and we paid dearly :P.
The Bombers, who won the midfield battles convincingly, out-tackled the Tigers 60-49, despite winning more of the football.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-05-25/richmond-v-essendon-match-report
-
*queue jazz hands*
-
Grigg how many tackles?
Nahas?
How many times did I see Jobe break through a tackle?
We have too many downhill skiers.
-
Is this a problem now? Well knock me down with a feather
-
Intensity was shocking tonight TM.
Even our guns went silent. :shh
-
Intensity was shocking tonight TM.
Even our guns went silent. :shh
What a surprise tb, intensity was lacking, so u just cant stuff a switch and go bang?? This is no surprise, weve been lacking in this area all season bar 1 or 2 games. People can have a go at MrTigra but hes spot on its a big problem
-
Intensity was shocking tonight TM.
Even our guns went silent. :shh
What a surprise tb, intensity was lacking, so u just cant stuff a switch and go bang?? This is no surprise, weve been lacking in this area all season bar 1 or 2 games. People can have a go at MrTigra but hes spot on its a big problem
Why thankyou TM. :thumbsup
It's nice to know I'm finally correct about something. :clapping
Yes it's a very very serious issue. Too soft, too scared and weak as pee.
-
Boys 5 yrs ago we were lamenting the fact we had all these flankers who couldn't kick and couldn't tackle. De Ja vu anyone. Issues remain albeit with different names.
We have gone backwards from this time last year even though we have won more games.
-
Agree tucker and your sig is currently making me squirm thanks to the lack of ambition by the tigers
-
Intensity was shocking tonight TM.
Even our guns went silent. :shh
What a surprise tb, intensity was lacking, so u just cant stuff a switch and go bang?? This is no surprise, weve been lacking in this area all season bar 1 or 2 games. People can have a go at MrTigra but hes spot on its a big problem
Why thankyou TM. :thumbsup
It's nice to know I'm finally correct about something. :clapping
Yes it's a very very serious issue. Too soft, too scared and weak as pee.
I'm with you now. :clapping
-
Is this a problem now? Well knock me down with a feather
its only a problem when we lose ;D in all seriousness its been a problem from the start of the season.
-
Grigg how many tackles?
About 10 actually
in the last three years
-
10 grigg tackles equals one jakey king stare at the opposition
-
Paul Roos got stuck into us about our weak/poor tackling on On the Couch last night - "Richmond need to tackle; they won't improve until they tackle". He then showed, as an example, footage of a terrible attempt by Jacko to tackle (Bomber player cruised past him as a result).
-
one important factor is numbers at the contest. when you are are outnumbered at the contest the opposition can play a sort of keepings off until they find an out, thus few tackles will be laid, when they have possession. when you have possession their extra men at the contest just about always ensure a tackle will be laid.
Low tackle count is not the illness, but a symptom.
-
one important factor is numbers at the contest. when you are are outnumbered at the contest the opposition can play a sort of keepings off until they find an out, thus few tackles will be laid, when they have possession. when you have possession their extra men at the contest just about always ensure a tackle will be laid.
Low tackle count is not the illness, but a symptom.
Very true Al.
You also need a kill or be killed mentality, a fierce desire to help your team mate and a willingness to run.
Maybe it's just that they're not fit enough.
Or maybe its just all mental.
-
TACKLE LIKE YOU MEAN IT
Jon Ralph
From: Herald Sun
May 28, 2013 11:00PM
HOW many IT boffins and assistant coaches and forward scouts have combined put thousands of hours into strategy at North Melbourne and Richmond?
Yet isn't it encouraging that both teams are struggling in their own ways because they won't tackle enough?
It is footy's oldest fundamental, and yet by design both teams seem keen to play game styles that avoid it.
Richmond tries to play keepings off, and North Melbourne just tries to put the afterburners on from minute one.
Great to see both coaches aren't lemmings following the rest, but no game plan thrives unless you throw in some old-fashioned G-and-D as well.
http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/key-stuff-1226652498700#mm-breached
-
We only had 50 tackles yesterday again!
Anyone else believe we are not tackling as much on purpose?
Frees up players more run?
-
We only had 50 tackles yesterday again!
Anyone else believe we are not tackling as much on purpose?
Frees up players more run?
They didn't have the ball. :lol
-
When it's a demolition like that game was tackling stats are pretty much useless. Our pressure and intensity was good from about mid-way through the first quarter.
When it's a close, contested game or we are losing, that's when tackling stats are telling.
-
When it's a demolition like that game was tackling stats are pretty much useless. Our pressure and intensity was good from about mid-way through the first quarter.
When it's a close, contested game or we are losing, that's when tackling stats are telling.
Yeah spot-on. When playing against quality sides tackling pressure and zone defence makes a real difference.
-
X2
Regardless, the pressure at the saints was relentless and high intensity.
-
Yippee our tackling numbers are up
-
TACKLE LIKE YOU MEAN IT
Jon Ralph
From: Herald Sun
May 28, 2013 11:00PM
HOW many IT boffins and assistant coaches and forward scouts have combined put thousands of hours into strategy at North Melbourne and Richmond?
Yet isn't it encouraging that both teams are struggling in their own ways because they won't tackle enough?
It is footy's oldest fundamental, and yet by design both teams seem keen to play game styles that avoid it.
Richmond tries to play keepings off, and North Melbourne just tries to put the afterburners on from minute one.
Great to see both coaches aren't lemmings following the rest, but no game plan thrives unless you throw in some old-fashioned G-and-D as well.
http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/key-stuff-1226652498700#mm-breached
Looks like the running game beats the possession game.
-
tackling stats mean BS.. second to the ball usually have more tackles.. if u have the ball in possession longer less tackles
they are stats as overrated as inside 50.. we won the inside 50 today yet lost by 10 goals
-
tackling stats mean BS.. second to the ball usually have more tackles.. if u have the ball in possession longer less tackles
they are stats as overrated as inside 50.. we won the inside 50 today yet lost by 10 goals
All stats generally show you an indication of the game.
Without looking at the stats we lost the game because we didn't run anywhere near as hard as North. They had numbers to the ball for 4 qtrs. They had Hansen unmarked the whole game and plucked and spoiled all day.
Shows you that winning the I50 and losing the game by 10 goals shows our delivery was disgusting or that had an extra man or 2 back who was defending easily. Which was 100% the case.
We also lost uncontsted marks and possessions by nearly double, which indicates that we didn't run as hard as North which was 100% the case.
We lost the game based on the fact we didn't work as hard as North and they had a set up in the back line which dominated our forwards with an extra man and they ran in huge numbers rebounding and attacking the space over the top. Destroyed us.
Pathetic effort on field and even more pathetic in coaches box not making a move to even up the numbers in our forward half.
-
Fair enough to be criticized for our low tackle count today. Just 50 tackles doesn't cut it against a team like the Swans that thrives on contested & high stoppage footy. We had too many passengers today and didn't match their pressure.
-
Fair enough to be criticized for our low tackle count today. Just 50 tackles doesn't cut it against a team like the Swans that thrives on contested & high stoppage footy. We had too many passengers today and didn't match their pressure.
Correct. No forward pressure today.
-
Lids :shh
-
We had 120 more possies, that may explain part of it :shh
-
Richmond is sick of hearing they don't tackle but can they hold up in September?
Jay Clark
From: Herald Sun
August 31, 2013 10:19PM
IT’S the curious case of the non-tackling Tigers.
A hard-to-believe story that follows a team to its first finals appearance in 12 years, albeit with a massive black spot in, what we thought, was a crucial defensive indicator.
We are told, the Tigers are sick of hearing how they rank last for tackles in the AFL. They have done so for years.
Their top-tackler this season is hard-nut Daniel Jackson, who averages four a game, ranked equal 85th in the league.
The Tigers quite rightly say they defend differently, applying pressure in other ways. They don’t try and mimic Sydney, the reigning premier and tackle kings.
But when the temperature gauge goes up five degrees minimum next weekend, and the game is won and lost around the contested footy, you wonder whether this yellow and black production will be a blockbuster or finals flop?
That’s not to say the Tigers aren’t desperate, or courageous. The sight of Steve Morris lunging head first at the ball through a nest of Bombers and Dylan Grimes backing blindly back into the pack last night would make their mothers cover their eyes.
What coach Damien Hardwick would also have loved in the 39-point win over Essendon is their aerial prowess across the back half. Something which was once considered an achilles heel for the Tigers might now be an ace.
Stoppers Grimes, Troy Chaplin and Alex Rance last night rolled off their men to intercept mark, showing repeatedly they can win the ball off the opposition.
It’s disciplined stuff from the midfielders, to first press up the ground to keep the ball in attack, then get back and help clog up space.
But the other beauty to the Richmond system that has shades of Hawthorn is how they deny the opposition the ball in the first place.
On Saturday night the Tigers smashed Essendon for contested ball and led for clearances. You don’t need to tackle when you’ve got the nut in your hand.
This Richmond team once considered one of the worst kicking sides in the history of football back in about 2010 have since become so smart with the Sherrin.
As they frustrated the Bombers on Saturday night, the Tigers chip short and kick laterally, going back and forth and waiting as long as it takes to find the free man with a yard in his opponent to hit up. It starts with whoever is in possession, holding the ball in the air.
Brandon Ellis ran his backside off to push into space and collect the short ball pushing upon the wing. Doubling up and back until his teammates found him, Ellis had 30 uncontested possessions at three quarter time.
It’s when the explosive Dustin Martin or Brett Deledio gather the ball that the trigger is pulled, and one penetrating kick can split the game apart.
While they are the pieces of play that stick in fans’ mind on the drive home from the ground, it’s the much more patient ball movement that has become the backbone of the Tigers’ rise this season.
http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/richmond-is-sick-of-hearing-they-dont-tackle-but-can-they-hold-up-in-september/story-fndv8t7m-1226708294907
-
Tackling a major focus for Tigers: Houli
By Mitch Cleary
Herald-Sun
September 4, 2013
RICHMOND defender Bachar Houli says the Tigers must increase their tackling intensity to be competitive against Carlton in Sunday’s elimination final.
The Tigers finished the home-and-away season averaging 55.9 tackles per match, the lowest in the League.
On Monday, Houli’s teammate Troy Chaplin described Saturday night’s 39-point win over Essendon as ‘basketball’, such was its uncontested nature. Both sides finished with just 45 tackles.
Houli acknowledged his teammates needed to put the Blues under more pressure on Sunday.
"He (Chaplin) is pretty accurate but in terms of us managing the way we wanted to play, it definitely wasn’t the way we wanted it to head," he said.
"We wanted to get our tackles right up. It’s been a stat for us individually we’ve wanted to get up."
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-09-03/tigers-to-tackle-tackling