One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: Hard Roar Tiger on February 20, 2015, 07:38:26 PM
-
The club is very confident of both a Top 4 finish and a minimum winning of one final in 2015. Interested to hear views on this ambition.
-
Pretty consistent with what I'm hearing around the traps , :shh
-
Why is it a rumour? Where did u hear it ?
-
Love the trolls... :lol
-
Well if they weren't confident the trolls would certainly be out! :whistle
-
In view of the current list, the failure of key figures to develop and the shortcomings of Damien as a coach, such an attitude is but a precursor to another 15 years of downward spiralling.
So funny.
-
Love the trolls... :lol
How's it a troll?
Just sharing what being mentioned....
-
Me too.
-
In view of the current list, the failure of key figures to develop and the shortcomings of Damien as a coach, such an attitude is but a precursor to another 15 years of downward spiralling.
So funny.
Last I checked we hadn't missed finals for three years, with Dimmas win /loss 56% in that time ::)
-
In view of the current list, the failure of key figures to develop and the shortcomings of Damien as a coach, such an attitude is but a precursor to another 15 years of downward spiralling.
So funny.
Last I checked we hadn't missed finals for three years, with Dimmas win /loss 56% in that time ::)
Last I checked we were smashed in the finals like we weren't supposed to be there.
I suppose 56% is something to aspire to in life though :wallywink
-
What's clarkson and ross Lyons win loss Einstein :lol over the last two seasons it's actually 60% ...ooh yeah he s struggling :ROTFL
-
Clarkson lost 3 games out of 25 at 88% in 2013
Lost 5 from 25 last year at 80%.
Giving Clarko 42 wins from 50 starts at 84%.
Yeah 60 % my ass. :wallywink
24% off the pace BJ. :help
-
What's clarkson and ross Lyons win loss Einstein :lol over the last two seasons it's actually 60% ...ooh yeah he s struggling :ROTFL
Lol incorrect mail again Bojo.
Did you go to the Hardwick skool of mafs? ;D
-
It gets better, the bumhole has a career coaching win record of 45%. The worst coaching record of any current coach with more than 1 season in the job.
http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/afl_coaches?status=A&type=&sort=p
And for those playing at home, this figure is worse than Terry Wallets 47% and Jeff Giechens 51%
Reach for those stars Damien
-
I'm not peeing down your back, BJ.....It's raining.
-
EFing stats. How you want to spin them?
-
EFing stats. How you want to spin them?
-
EFing stats. How you want to spin them?
Why coz u prefer bs to support your story :ROTFL
-
BJ you have been shown up here pal. Just accept it mate, it happens to the best of us. Just ask albert. :cheers
-
Bojo on the ropes, can he respond?
You bet he will. :shh
-
Clarkson lost 3 games out of 25 at 88% in 2013
Lost 5 from 25 last year at 80%.
Giving Clarko 42 wins from 50 starts at 84%.
Yeah 60 % my ass. :wallywink
24% off the pace BJ. :help
Dimmas win loss last two seasons is 60% , what's ross Lyons :wallywink don't stuff it will be 24 diff matey , do your homework buddy
-
27 wins from 44 games = %
-
Yeah Dimmas win loss since August 2014 is 92.77%
Lol
What is his record as a coach??? That's the only stay that matters. Cheers Dooks
-
Yeah Dimmas win loss since August 2014 is 92.77%
Lol
What is his record as a coach??? That's the only stay that matters. Cheers Dooks
We don't always see eye to eye on things Angus, but when it comes to detecting obvious bullcrap we are on the same page.
There's a lesson in this for everyone - if you don't know what you are talking about, and post fraudulent statistics you'll be held to account.
Now let's try to put this behind us all and move on
-
In view of the current list, the failure of key figures to develop and the shortcomings of Damien as a coach, such an attitude is but a precursor to another 15 years of downward spiralling.
So funny.
Last I checked we hadn't missed finals for three years, with Dimmas win /loss 56% in that time ::)
Last time I checked we had played in 2 finals series in the last 2 years and lost both finals. Spinning it to say we haven't missed finals in 3 years is mischievous. 3 seasons ago we missed finals. This year doesn't mean a thing because it hasn't started
Yes it's good to make finals but to get smashed like we did list September is totally unacceptable and no amount of spin, stats or positive talk can hide that fact.
I am looking forward to the season ahead, have certain expectations and expect finals as the barest of minimums
But this is a crucial season for the RFC on so many levels and that is the reality and no spin can hide it
-
Finals isn't a minimum. A finals win is a minimum. If it's only another finals appearance and out in the elimination then dimms gets sacked
-
In view of the current list, the failure of key figures to develop and the shortcomings of Damien as a coach, such an attitude is but a precursor to another 15 years of downward spiralling.
So funny.
Last I checked we hadn't missed finals for three years, with Dimmas win /loss 56% in that time ::)
Last time I checked we had played in 2 finals series in the last 2 years and lost both finals. Spinning it to say we haven't missed finals in 3 years is mischievous. 3 seasons ago we missed finals. This year doesn't mean a thing because it hasn't started
Yes it's good to make finals but to get smashed like we did list September is totally unacceptable and no amount of spin, stats or positive talk can hide that fact.
I am looking forward to the season ahead, have certain expectations and expect finals as the barest of minimums
But this is a crucial season for the RFC on so many levels and that is the reality and no spin can hide it
not spinning it , FACT was three seasons ago that we last missed finals, last time I checked we made them for the last two....research how clarko at the hawks went in their first couple of finals appearances and come back to me , that's not mischievous , its called HOMEWORK :shh
-
How can something like that be a rumour lol
Got one for you, rumour is we're incredibly full of BS and very lean on results.
STFU Richmond
-
In view of the current list, the failure of key figures to develop and the shortcomings of Damien as a coach, such an attitude is but a precursor to another 15 years of downward spiralling.
So funny.
Last I checked we hadn't missed finals for three years, with Dimmas win /loss 56% in that time ::)
Last time I checked we had played in 2 finals series in the last 2 years and lost both finals. Spinning it to say we haven't missed finals in 3 years is mischievous. 3 seasons ago we missed finals. This year doesn't mean a thing because it hasn't started
Yes it's good to make finals but to get smashed like we did list September is totally unacceptable and no amount of spin, stats or positive talk can hide that fact.
I am looking forward to the season ahead, have certain expectations and expect finals as the barest of minimums
But this is a crucial season for the RFC on so many levels and that is the reality and no spin can hide it
not spinning it , FACT was three seasons ago that we last missed finals, last time I checked we made them for the last two....research how clarko at the hawks went in their first couple of finals appearances and come back to me , that's not mischievous , its called HOMEWORK :shh
(http://www.colorcombos.com/images/colors/000000.png)
White ^^
(http://www.laminex.com.au/uploads/products/polar_white80.jpg)
Black ^^
-
2013 Make finals Tankers get on on forfeit and make us look like rabbits in the headlights after 1/2 time, disgusting effort.....
blaaaa blaaa blaaa well learn it hurts etc etc
2014 Worst half of a season I have ever seen from a Richmond team, sneak into to finals. Time to make amends for last year and show hpw much it hurt last year, um nope only people hurting were the supporters that went over there and had to wat ch that insipid effort.
blaaa blaaa blaaa ....... etc etc 2015 TBC.....
nothing less than a finals victory suffices in my book, well see
-
This might be the most depressing forum on the internet
-
actually I want a bluddy premiership. fts :gotigers
-
BJ you have been shown up here pal. Just accept it mate, it happens to the best of us. Just ask albert. :cheers
LOL, nice try little man.
what i like about you is that you make those of us with a semblance of intelligence look like geniuses :cheers
-
Let's face it, Hardwick has had a good run at it and stagnated last year.
This is the year that will tell us.
If they don't improve, which means top 6 minimum and winning a final then we will have reached the top of his curve and it will be time to move on and start again.
They should be confident they will achieve top four and winning finals, otherwise Hardwick should have quit already.
-
Let's face it, Hardwick has had a good run at it and stagnated last year.
This is the year that will tell us.
If they don't improve, which means top 6 minimum and winning a final then we will have reached the top of his curve and it will be time to move on and start again.
They should be confident they will achieve top four and winning finals, otherwise Hardwick should have quit already.
I think many are on the same page as you TBR!
It has been hard to date to sack a guy that has got us into 2 finals series in a row. Nobody has done that for 40 years!
However, if we stagnate, it would all have been for nothing.
-
This might be the most depressing forum on the internet
that may be true but it is the most honest.
how anyone can argue hardwicks overall record is good is just plain ridiculous.but wheres the balance in saying that. who in his right mind expected him to have a good win loss record in his first couple of seasons.
how rumour is even mentioned in this thread is beyond me. the club has constantly said finals and a final win is expected. not a rumour but a goal that was established 4 or 5 months ago.
its probably a reasonable expectation for a middling team and that people is what we are, middling, our results our list everything screams this at us.
the challenge for hardwick is to take us beyond middling stop stagnating and become a consistent top 6 side. i for one just cant see it happening. it means 14 to 15 wins and a home final
the trouble is there is so much competition about with so many clubs so close to each other finishing 12 or worse is a realistic possibility also.
my complaint with hardwick is imo he stopped making hard decisions 2 seasons ago in preference for unsustainable short term gain.i also think recruiting while we have improved a little has not ever been properly addressed and list management imo is ordinary.
-
This might be the most depressing forum on the internet
that may be true but it is the most honest.
how anyone can argue hardwicks overall record is good is just plain ridiculous.but wheres the balance in saying that. who in his right mind expected him to have a good win loss record in his first couple of seasons.
how rumour is even mentioned in this thread is beyond me. the club has constantly said finals and a final win is expected. not a rumour but a goal that was established 4 or 5 months ago.
its probably a reasonable expectation for a middling team and that people is what we are, middling, our results our list everything screams this at us.
the challenge for hardwick is to take us beyond middling stop stagnating and become a consistent top 6 side. i for one just cant see it happening. it means 14 to 15 wins and a home final
the trouble is there is so much competition about with so many clubs so close to each other finishing 12 or worse is a realistic possibility also.
my complaint with hardwick is imo he stopped making hard decisions 2 seasons ago in preference for unsustainable short term gain.i also think recruiting while we have improved a little has not ever been properly addressed and list management imo is ordinary.
I agree totally with this summary.
I think one of two things happened to Hardwick two years ago:
1) He could see his plan of building the list would take longer than he promised and so started taking short cuts to be able to get us into the finals so he could fulfil his KPIs
2) He completely misjudged how good the list was and thought that it needed a little topping up.
Either way we went off the right track and went for the recycled player without enough youth being brought in. Also the quality of the recycled player wasn't that high which has made us stagnate.
-
It gets better, the bumhole has a career coaching win record of 45%. The worst coaching record of any current coach with more than 1 season in the job.
http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/afl_coaches?status=A&type=&sort=p
And for those playing at home, this figure is worse than Terry Wallets 47% and Jeff Giechens 51%
Reach for those stars Damien
Early years I'm willing to give him benefit of the doubt because he took on a crappy list and did what he said in giving games to youngsters. Unfortuantely it seems he thinks once you do that for 2-3 years you no longer have to give any games to younger (or better performing) players :-\
-
clearly the worst coach we've had in the last 30 years or so,
or so it would seem.......
-
Can we get Sheedy?
-
Well in Hardwicks first two seasons - when our list was described as "Fitzroy-esque" his winning percentage was 31% ....for those of you too young to remember Fitzroy - The lions were the Melbourne of the 90s.
In the past two years - Hardwick has a winning percentage in the H&A season of 61 %. Plus given hope to any team that finds itself 3-10.....that kind of resurrection will always be known as doing a "Richmond".
We will win a final soon enough ....until then - what are you girls whinging about ?
-
It gets better, the bumhole has a career coaching win record of 45%. The worst coaching record of any current coach with more than 1 season in the job.
http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/afl_coaches?status=A&type=&sort=p
And for those playing at home, this figure is worse than Terry Wallets 47% and Jeff Giechens 51%
Reach for those stars Damien
Early years I'm willing to give him benefit of the doubt because he took on a crappy list.........
Sounds strangely familiar as a Richmond supporter.
I don't want to spoil the end of the movie, but when it all happens and reality hits, people will be stunned how they didn't see it coming (again).
-
Can we get Sheedy?
Would rather Checker Hughes and you know where he is!
-
Can we get Sheedy?
Would rather Checker Hughes and you know where he is!
Weekend at Bernies style. Couldn't do any worse.
I think sheedy is busy anyway for the next few years, propping open a door somewhere....
-
Clarkson lost 3 games out of 25 at 88% in 2013
Lost 5 from 25 last year at 80%.
Giving Clarko 42 wins from 50 starts at 84%.
Yeah 60 % my ass. :wallywink
24% off the pace BJ. :help
Dimmas win loss last two seasons is 60% , what's ross Lyons :wallywink don't stuff it will be 24 diff matey , do your homework buddy
You claimed Rossy's was 60% as Clarko's.
Rossy for the record is 34 wins 1 draw and 14 losses in the last 2 years at 70.4%.
You still claiming 60%.
Dimma is 27 from 46 at 58.69% last two years.
Just shows the gulf between us scraping into the 8 or getting knocked out in the first week of finals compared to bona fide top 4 sides.
For the record Port started further behind us at the end of 2012 yet have won 30 games from 48 starts including 2 interstate finals and a home one against us and running the Premiers in a prelim to a bees swizzle stick of a GF at 62.5%.
Are Port more on the up than us. I reckon but I digress from the topic.
Your figures have as many black holes as Treasurer Hockey's balance sheets.
Again I reiterate 60% my ass. :wallywink
-
Well someone is going to be wrong in about 30 weeks because the club thinks it will finish top 4 and will win a final. So checker hughes and sheeds better keep their powder dry for a little bit.
-
How does Dames stack up against Spud?
-
i am not sure why one win is acceptable by some here.
screw that even blues can at least a final so what we want to be on par with them do we?
we can beat hawks, swans and freo so IMO with a coach who has a plan b we can finish top 4.
-
Would also like to look at Eades record at the Dogs before he was tramped!!!
-
Id be happy to make finals again my fellow tigernatics, I have not forgotten the past decades of utter bollocks heaped upon bollocks. Any coach who can navigate the politics of the RFC and still get us into finals is a winner. If Hardwick makes it 3 years of finals in a row and we get whomped again, so what. Its our systemic culture that has sucked for years. 3 years of turn around is great.
How short your memories are of 9th 9th and 9th again!
-
Oh look...the bloke's clearly a legend - turned us from "Ninthmond" into "Eigthmond"....
-
8 is great but 9 is FINE!
-
The problem is all the talk of how we can't sack a bloke when we've made finals two years in a row.
Knocked out in elims twice. Some people find that unacceptable.
If we accept a finals appearance as a pass mark we'll stay about that mark. Top 4 is the only good indication that you have a shot at the flag. That should be the benchmark.
Tough decisions need to be made sometimes. Like sacking a bloke who made two elimination losses in a row.
-
The problem is all the talk of how we can't sack a bloke when we've made finals two years in a row.
Knocked out in elims twice. Some people find that unacceptable.
If we accept a finals appearance as a pass mark we'll stay about that mark. Top 4 is the only good indication that you have a shot at the flag. That should be the benchmark.
Tough decisions need to be made sometimes. Like sacking a bloke who made two elimination losses in a row.
Agree. It's a cutthroat competition and you have to be looking to raise standards all the time. This includes not exaggerating and rewarding mediocre efforts just because they're were a bit less mediocre than previous efforts.
The big early indicators for me -apart from selections- will be the tackling, shepherding, two-way running, accountabilty and fitness...if those basic things still haven't improved after six years then they never will under this regime.
-
Oh look...the bloke's clearly a legend - turned us from "Ninthmond" into "Eigthmond"....
No one else did in 30 years.
-
The problem is all the talk of how we can't sack a bloke when we've made finals two years in a row.
Knocked out in elims twice. Some people find that unacceptable.
If we accept a finals appearance as a pass mark we'll stay about that mark. Top 4 is the only good indication that you have a shot at the flag. That should be the benchmark.
Tough decisions need to be made sometimes. Like sacking a bloke who made two elimination losses in a row.
And how has Carlscum gone after sacking their so so coach in Ratten, where things slowly were improving. To mick the master coach. Backwards and downwards. It gutted the existing players and Mick has had to replace most of the list to go where? Nowhere zone.
The same would happen to us. Hardwicks team would be bust and we wouldnt get back to finals until we replaced 20 players and got 50+ games into them. 3 years minimum.
-
The problem is all the talk of how we can't sack a bloke when we've made finals two years in a row.
Knocked out in elims twice. Some people find that unacceptable.
If we accept a finals appearance as a pass mark we'll stay about that mark. Top 4 is the only good indication that you have a shot at the flag. That should be the benchmark.
Tough decisions need to be made sometimes. Like sacking a bloke who made two elimination losses in a row.
And how has Carlscum gone after sacking their so so coach in Ratten, where things slowly were improving. To mick the master coach. Backwards and downwards. It gutted the existing players and Mick has had to replace most of the list to go where? Nowhere zone.
The same would happen to us. Hardwicks team would be bust and we wouldnt get back to finals until we replaced 20 players and got 50+ games into them. 3 years minimum.
What we need is a two coach plan, one to go through the pain of a major rebuild and then another to come in and lap up the cream.
Maybe Voss first up then Malthouse
-
How does Dames stack up against Spud?
http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/afl_coaches?status=A&type=&sort=p
Comparable
Dames 45%
Spud 40%
-
Would also like to look at Eades record at the Dogs before he was tramped!!!
Eade at bulldogs incl finals - 92 wins 71 losses 2 draws. 56% winning record
-
Would also like to look at Eades record at the Dogs before he was tramped!!!
Eade at bulldogs incl finals - 92 wins 71 losses 2 draws. 56% winning record
Mmmm, there you go.
-
Let's get Eade then
-
The problem is all the talk of how we can't sack a bloke when we've made finals two years in a row.
Knocked out in elims twice. Some people find that unacceptable.
If we accept a finals appearance as a pass mark we'll stay about that mark. Top 4 is the only good indication that you have a shot at the flag. That should be the benchmark.
Tough decisions need to be made sometimes. Like sacking a bloke who made two elimination losses in a row.
And how has Carlscum gone after sacking their so so coach in Ratten, where things slowly were improving. To mick the master coach. Backwards and downwards. It gutted the existing players and Mick has had to replace most of the list to go where? Nowhere zone.
The same would happen to us. Hardwicks team would be bust and we wouldnt get back to finals until we replaced 20 players and got 50+ games into them. 3 years minimum.
You realise these wankers beat us in an elimination final? I'm not exactly laughing at Carlton mate, I still consider them a genuine threat come round 1.
If I had suggested the following, would you have disagreed?
Summer '13-'14
- Not renewing Hardwick's contract last summer, but instead waiting until mid-season 2014 to review (This is reasonable IMO. Tail doesn't wag the dog after all, and losing to Carlton was unacceptable)
Mid-season '14
- Telling Hardwick that he had the good faith of RFC for making finals in 2013, so he wouldn't be sacked for being around the 3-0-10 mark which was clearly a step backwards
End of season 2014
- Deciding Hardwick's inability to prepare the team for a finals match in SA was unacceptable. The players were terrified. I was there...
- Realising that Bomber was no longer going to be working at EFC, and he clearly still enjoyed being a senior coach
- Throwing the sink at Bomber ($3mil for 3 years or thereabouts)
- Renew Hardwicks contract for ONE year/consider other coaches if Bomber didn't take the money (but hey, money talks)
If we had done that I wouldn't have been upset at all. I'd much rather have Bomber coaching RFC than Hardwick, or Malthouse/Roos/Voss for that matter.
The problem is that Hardwick's plan seems to be peaking already. His insistence on persevering with players like Grigg, Newman, Petterd etc is the perfect example of why our club will stagnate. We need a coach who will tell Newman he's finished and clogging the list, tell Grigg he's too gutless, tell Petterd he's only a backup player not a starting 22. Three-year contract for Foley on the back on excellent rehab-attitude? Please...
Hey it's not at cutthroat as the 80's and 90's etc but Hardwick has had five whole years to build the RFC list now. Look at what Ken Hinkley has done! Look at how Malthouse repeatedly either beats RFC or pushes us deep into the final QTR by out-coaching Hardwick! We clearly don't have a premiership bloke at the helm. That needs to change.
-
Let's get Eade then
Why?
Reason I asked is that Hardwick may be another Eade..
He can get them to finals and that's it, he cant get them into or winning a GF, there are others like that too, Malthouse was like that the Dogs, Eade was again like that at the Swans. Hardwick may just fall into that category...
-
Don't think Malthouse coached the dogs
-
Don't think Malthouse coached the dogs
Sure did. His first coaching gig, before the Weagles.
-
Finals separate wheat from chaff.
-
Eade has a significantly better record than Dimma but perhaps unfair to compare after 5 years. Bomber,Roos etc would never coach Richmond. Bomber still thinks we are an ordinary, deluded club.
-
Don't be so sure. :shh
-
Don't think Malthouse coached the dogs
Yeah he did mate.
-
i am not sure why one win is acceptable by some here.
screw that even blues can at least a final so what we want to be on par with them do we?
we can beat hawks, swans and freo so IMO with a coach who has a plan b we can finish top 4.
Ahh the mythical plan B.
Which clubs have a plan B and more importantly, how does it differ to their plan A?
The other thing that amuses me in regards to this plan B, if we ever dare try a player in different positions, something that would give a coach versatility required to alter their plan, they get howled down with criticism for doing so.
so the other question is, if you only have players you can play one position, how doe you implement plan B
-
I don't see it as plan B, I see Hardwick's problem that he is unable to respond to anything other teams do.
He doesn't alter plan A, so when a club plays a man behind the footy or changes forward or midfield structure we just sit and get smashed for 3 quarters before he does anything.
-
I don't see it as plan B, I see Hardwick's problem that he is unable to respond to anything other teams do.
He doesn't alter plan A, so when a club plays a man behind the footy or changes forward or midfield structure we just sit and get smashed for 3 quarters before he does anything.
I'm picking up what you're putting down. :thumbsup
-
I don't see it as plan B, I see Hardwick's problem that he is unable to respond to anything other teams do.
He doesn't alter plan A, so when a club plays a man behind the footy or changes forward or midfield structure we just sit and get smashed for 3 quarters before he does anything.
So get a match day coach.
-
So much analysis, think I'll just rock up at bullfrogs next sat and take each day as it comes and enjoy it!
-
I don't see it as plan B, I see Hardwick's problem that he is unable to respond to anything other teams do.
He doesn't alter plan A, so when a club plays a man behind the footy or changes forward or midfield structure we just sit and get smashed for 3 quarters before he does anything.
So get a match day coach.
Yep #bomber2016
Of course he will want the Senior Coach job so as long as Damien is happy to carry on as an assistant then all good.
-
So much analysis, think I'll just rock up at bullfrogs next sat and take each day as it comes and enjoy it!
:clapping
-
Id be happy to make finals again my fellow tigernatics, I have not forgotten the past decades of utter bollocks heaped upon bollocks. Any coach who can navigate the politics of the RFC and still get us into finals is a winner. If Hardwick makes it 3 years of finals in a row and we get whomped again, so what. Its our systemic culture that has sucked for years. 3 years of turn around is great.
How short your memories are of 9th 9th and 9th again!
actually 9th 9th and 9th again is no worse than 8th its middling. as late as the last minute of the home and away season we were a chance to finish what 11th,
finishing 8th is no great achievment its very average in fact. the truth is we went backwards last yr yet we made finals.
the aim has to be improvement in all areas and ignore the win loss column.this was more relevant 2 yrs ago but now yr 6 they almost have to make finals to appease the masses and i think finding and devoling younger players has taken a backseat or it did.
middling is middling the search for players and development has to be a priority still.we are nowhere near a premiership and if we dont acknowledge this we run the risk of doing what we always do and that is reach middling 9th or last yr 8th and then go backwards.
what i mean by finishing 8th is no great achievment is i thought we played better footy in 2012 and finished 12th than we did when we finished 5th. i know that sounds strange but i stand by it.
the win loss column only tells a small part of the story.
fact is there are several areas we just have to be better and it will take time and to sugar coat it is folly.
yes we could well make finals geez if everything goes as well as it could and everything aligns we could even finish 5th 6th. but imo we have stagnated, far too many have reached their ceiling and we get far too many things wrong still, ffs a 12 14th finish would be no surprise but it doesnt have to be a bad thing.
firstly finding 5 or 6 good players to come into the 22 and then developing them is what is needed to become something more than middling. we all know this if we are honest.
-
still no enlightenment on this plan B.
perhaps wed get a better response talking about yetis ?
-
i will give it a go. Plan B on and off the field is something he lacks.
Plan B judd dominating in the final what did hardwick do? Nothing. GC karmichael hunt did we go man on man? I cant recall as i have removed the game from my memory.
Plan B. Players are not listening to you (3/10 start) so why not make an example and let newman play in the reserves for an extended period. Did he do that? Most clubs would have offloaded his sorry arse so thats how other clubs have a plan b
Most of the top clubs have a plan b do which we are not.
clubs that move players moving from defence to forward. Clubs that move players moving centre from the forward line to give them an edge.
bottom line he is not all that bright as an afl coach. Will keep us around the same mark again this year, but im about winning flags not finishing near 9th
-
:lol
thats not answering the questions i posed
-
I don't see it as plan B, I see Hardwick's problem that he is unable to respond to anything other teams do.
He doesn't alter plan A, so when a club plays a man behind the footy or changes forward or midfield structure we just sit and get smashed for 3 quarters before he does anything.
I'm picking up what you're putting down. :thumbsup
Just spoke with blind freddy and he agrees too.
-
I don't see it as plan B, I see Hardwick's problem that he is unable to respond to anything other teams do.
He doesn't alter plan A, so when a club plays a man behind the footy or changes forward or midfield structure we just sit and get smashed for 3 quarters before he does anything.
I'm picking up what you're putting down. :thumbsup
Just spoke with blind freddy and he agrees too.
Give him a pat on the arse from ol' Dooks. He's a top bloke, is Freddie
-
Snip! >:(
Now back to discussing the topic without the personal snipes.
-
I think a lot of clubs try different things but they just don't come off.
The easy thing to do would be then to highlight a few that have come off in the past, aka Judd in the mid in the elimination (which btw is such a masterstroke, who would think off putting their most decorated and experienced mid in the mid when they were getting reamed in there?)
To say we don't try different thing is just stuff, we push our mids forward etc etc etc etc etc
-
So back to the matter at hand, the mythical plan B. It is often mentioned as critique that hardwick lacks, but which clubs have a plan B and how does it differ from their plan A?
and/or
If you dont want the club to play players in different positions so they can be more versatile, what do you expect the coach to do game day when their starting plan doesnt work?
Al are you saying an alternate game plan is limited to swapping players into different positions?
What are your thoughts on say:-
1) Spatial line up (half ground presses, defensive presses, forward presses etc) and counter attacking vs man on man, and combinations depending on whether the ball is in or not in possession.
2) Spatial delivery of the ball - corridor vs stuff vs boundary movement in attack, combinations of these, and the defensive switch across the ground.
3) Disposal method - handball to kick ratio, run and carry to breakdown defensive presses. Long kick short kick. High possession low possession etc
4) Dictating/avoiding stoppages if you are winning/losing out at stoppages
It's clear most teams have various plans, some are more noticeable than others. North are a good example in their attacking style. Sometimes they'll take the game on with run and carry. Others they are more precise and slow the ball down, with short kicks to cut through the oppositions defence. This changes from quarter to quarter.
Sydney is another obvious one. Depending on the state of the opposition strenghts they'll either bomb it long into the forward line or kick it shorter/handball through the midfield. This also changes within the game, depending on various factors.
Changes to the game style of teams like Hawthorn, Geelong, Port and Freo are also evident. Other teams do it too but it's less obvious because when it doesn't work, from a viewing perspective, the method gets lost to the outcome and some players don't stick to instructions.
My knock on Richmond is that when we have a run of goals kicked against us, usually NOTHING changes. Very little in anything. Not even rotating a stronger/better defender onto an opposition fed who is having a good day. And if it does (slightly), it's after the damage is done.
We are also reasonably predictable with the way we move the ball.
I think there are issues in the limited versatility of our game plan, as well as on field leadership and communication. And our players are a lot more one dimensional position wise than most other average to good teams.
-
Why does it seem only the good teams have a good Plan B?
-
Nah Dooks, im not saying or suggesting that all. All im really trying to do Dooks, is estblish if anyone laying the critisms actually has any semblence of a clue of AFL teams gameplans.
and it seems you actually do, which is refreshing.
Spatial line ups?
This is the constantly evolving part of the modern game. Someone perfects an effective zone defensive method and other teams initially struggle with it. Eventually though they find ways to counteract it and it will evolve into something else (this is why it poos me that the league constantly tamper with rules in an effort to see the game played to the way they want it).
Is any one method preferable over another, that is subjective and also probably dependent on personell. They all require a high degree of fitness work rate and discipline.
A defensive press is basically a flood. it makes it very difficult for the opposition to score against you , but requires players who can basically outrun their opponents to be able to clear the ball from your backline and score yourself.
The forward press i like more. it is more attacking and if it works it keeps the ball at the correct end of the ground for long periods of time. This is very taxing on the opposing team, but on the flip side, if it breaks down it creates an overlap that allows the opposition to go coast to coast quickly, if they are good enough.
Actually that is the downside of any zone defensive plan. We saw it early days with hardwick as the players were learning it. When it breaks down against the better teams they hurt you, and it looks bad. The thing i found intersting in those first couple of years is that in the games against the lower teams when he felt we had a chance to win, he would play man on man. But against the better teams he was willing to take the beltings as part of the learning process by playing more of a zone defense.
The full ground press or rolling zone is probably the most difficult to do properly, but also the most difficult to counter if done properly. I think though that is simply too taxing to be contsantly deployed.
I know that one of the coaches of a top NTFL side who played AFL, wont use zone defense at all. he prefers to use man on man because it makes each player accountable. He says its too easy, using a zone defence, for a player to not to position and then use his rotation as an excuse eg " no i had swapped to the pocket when that happened player x should have been there at that stage".
as for Spatial delivery of the ball, Risk verses reward basically sums it up, and again i don't believe there is any one correct answer.
A lot of people crtisise the way we kick into the pockets, but i know that it has been shown that kicking central to the forward line from the stuff is much more likely to result directly in an opposing goal, as well as for yourself. It is inclusive though, that which method is better. There is also a rectangle zone about the width of the center square across half forward that if the ball turns over there is a high chance of the opposition scoring.
kick the stuffing thing - in a nutshell, but handball is very good for releasing the ball into space, which is the essence of successful football. Also if you using a running game it can be effextive as a group of players surge up the ground moving the ball sideways to avoid defenders coming at you. almost rugby like. long kicks are preferable, but pointless if the opposition is set up specifically for it.
trying to avoid stoppages can be fraught with danger. it requires either a high intensity running game or a precise kicking game, both difficult to impliment. if you are getting smashed in clearances you are already in trouble. it also risks turnovers as you attempt to keep the ball alive rather than allowing the stoppage
if you have a good clearence side, creating stoppages by kicking to a group of your own players or hugging the boundry can be an effective, although ugly, way of countering defensive zones to gain ground.
Big fan of the switch. it has been implimented in games such as soccer, hockey netball water polo as a means to create space and counter defensive zones for ages. The larger grounds of aussie rules make it more effective, but is much more reliant on having a better work rate than your opponent. it is frustrating to watch the ball being switched only to see the opposition swarm accross the ground to bottle it up again and you are back to square one.
I read an article by an AFL coach once that talked about trying to stop an opposing teams run on. basically he said it very hard to do and there is little you can do from the coaching box. it may have been bomber, but i cant be sure
-
think WAT has summed it up perfectly. You keep at your little issues though if it works for you.
-
Why does it seem only the good teams have a good Plan B?
We aren't a good team. Strategy wise we are a predictable middle of the road team who got lucky last year in making the finals of the back of an easy draw and a run of wins against mainly average to poor teams.
Take one or 2 of our better players out (deledio/rance /maric) and the whole wallpapering over cracks in the list and game style opens up. 3 and 10. See the first half of last year.
-
Why does it seem only the good teams have a good Plan B?
We aren't a good team. Strategy wise we are a predictable middle of the road team who got lucky last year in making the finals of the back of an easy draw and a run of wins against mainly average to poor teams.
Take one or 2 of our better players out (deledio/rance /maric) and the whole wallpapering over cracks in the list and game style opens up. 3 and 10. See the first half of last year.
Ok so only good teams can have a plan B
The question is then what comes first, the good team or the good plan B?
-
Nah Dooks, im not saying or suggesting that all. All im really trying to do Dooks, is estblish if anyone laying the critisms actually has any semblence of a clue of AFL teams gameplans.
and it seems you actually do, which is refreshing.
Spatial line ups?
This is the constantly evolving part of the modern game. Someone perfects an effective zone defensive method and other teams initially struggle with it. Eventually though they find ways to counteract it and it will evolve into something else (this is why it poos me that the league constantly tamper with rules in an effort to see the game played to the way they want it).
Is any one method preferable over another, that is subjective and also probably dependent on personell. They all require a high degree of fitness work rate and discipline.
A defensive press is basically a flood. it makes it very difficult for the opposition to score against you , but requires players who can basically outrun their opponents to be able to clear the ball from your backline and score yourself.
The forward press i like more. it is more attacking and if it works it keeps the ball at the correct end of the ground for long periods of time. This is very taxing on the opposing team, but on the flip side, if it breaks down it creates an overlap that allows the opposition to go coast to coast quickly, if they are good enough.
Actually that is the downside of any zone defensive plan. We saw it early days with hardwick as the players were learning it. When it breaks down against the better teams they hurt you, and it looks bad. The thing i found intersting in those first couple of years is that in the games against the lower teams when he felt we had a chance to win, he would play man on man. But against the better teams he was willing to take the beltings as part of the learning process by playing more of a zone defense.
The full ground press or rolling zone is probably the most difficult to do properly, but also the most difficult to counter if done properly. I think though that is simply too taxing to be contsantly deployed.
I know that one of the coaches of a top NTFL side who played AFL, wont use zone defense at all. he prefers to use man on man because it makes each player accountable. He says its too easy, using a zone defence, for a player to not to position and then use his rotation as an excuse eg " no i had swapped to the pocket when that happened player x should have been there at that stage".
as for Spatial delivery of the ball, Risk verses reward basically sums it up, and again i don't believe there is any one correct answer.
A lot of people crtisise the way we kick into the pockets, but i know that it has been shown that kicking central to the forward line from the stuff is much more likely to result directly in an opposing goal, as well as for yourself. It is inclusive though, that which method is better. There is also a rectangle zone about the width of the center square across half forward that if the ball turns over there is a high chance of the opposition scoring.
kick the stuffing thing - in a nutshell, but handball is very good for releasing the ball into space, which is the essence of successful football. Also if you using a running game it can be effextive as a group of players surge up the ground moving the ball sideways to avoid defenders coming at you. almost rugby like. long kicks are preferable, but pointless if the opposition is set up specifically for it.
trying to avoid stoppages can be fraught with danger. it requires either a high intensity running game or a precise kicking game, both difficult to impliment. if you are getting smashed in clearances you are already in trouble. it also risks turnovers as you attempt to keep the ball alive rather than allowing the stoppage
if you have a good clearence side, creating stoppages by kicking to a group of your own players or hugging the boundry can be an effective, although ugly, way of countering defensive zones to gain ground.
Big fan of the switch. it has been implimented in games such as soccer, hockey netball water polo as a means to create space and counter defensive zones for ages. The larger grounds of aussie rules make it more effective, but is much more reliant on having a better work rate than your opponent. it is frustrating to watch the ball being switched only to see the opposition swarm accross the ground to bottle it up again and you are back to square one.
I read an article by an AFL coach once that talked about trying to stop an opposing teams run on. basically he said it very hard to do and there is little you can do from the coaching box. it may have been bomber, but i cant be sure
If you haven't seen it already Al, I reckon you'd be fascinated (particularly) in pages 9 and 10 of this year's AFL prospectus. It discusses the statistical liklihood of scoring against the opposition depending on who is in possession and location of the ball on the field. Contour maps etc
-
Why does it seem only the good teams have a good Plan B?
We aren't a good team. Strategy wise we are a predictable middle of the road team who got lucky last year in making the finals of the back of an easy draw and a run of wins against mainly average to poor teams.
Take one or 2 of our better players out (deledio/rance /maric) and the whole wallpapering over cracks in the list and game style opens up. 3 and 10. See the first half of last year.
Ok so only good teams can have a plan B
The question is then what comes first, the good team or the good plan B?
Good question. I dunno. Id be guessing at theyd probably evolve together. There's a correlation between the two and my guess is youd need a smart and talented enough coaching group and players to research and execute.
-
i really dont think its a matter of havin a plan B.
Its just that their basic plan has many variations.
when Hardwick took over there was a lot of banging on about the new simplified game plan, but i think many missed a subtle but important comment by Reiwoltd at the time . he said going from wallace to hardwick was like going from primary school to high school.
For the first time in their career the players were given play books with all the set plays and their variations to learn.
I also dont think predicibility is an issue. In modern sports everyone pretty much knows what every one else is going to do. The better sides just implement it better than their opponents. Very few game are actually won or lost by the use of some surpising tactic out of the blue. As hardwick pointed out when he took over, everyone knew how the geelong team of the time played, they just it so well they were hard to beat.
-
any chance of shooting me a copy of those pages dooks?
-
think WAT has summed it up perfectly. You keep at your little issues though if it works for you.
It is a very reasonable question that i asked
One in a long list that you clearly have no answer for.
-
Snip :banghead
keep the insults etc off the forum and stick to the topic
There's a great chat going on about Plan B's and it doens't deserve to get lost because people are too busy taking pot shots
-
Nah, it's a quiet and wet Monday at work WP, let the insults flow I say - keeps it interesting and gives me something to read!! ;D
-
Wait to we start up with the discussion on Plan C
:gobdrop
-
any chance of shooting me a copy of those pages dooks?
PM me your email and I'll send a couple snaps
-
any chance of shooting me a copy of those pages dooks?
PM me your email and I'll send a couple snaps
Clean ones only thanks Dooks
-
I'll give you an example of why Hardwick is a poor coach.
I'm going by memory so the details are a bit fuzzy but the Port Adelaide game at Etihad last year sums it up.
Game started and we were playing well, forward line operating beautifully, opened up a nice lead.
Port realised their forward structure and defence were getting smashed and chucked Westoff behind the ball mid way through the second term and started to play better.
Third term they continued and came back and looked like running over the top of us before finally after a quarter and a half of nothing Hardwick sent Chaplin forward and made them accountable and we hung on.
A good coach would have reacted to Port much quicker and not allowed them to dictate terms.
-
LMAO that's funny
He got smashed when we were losing and now can't even take credit for a win
-
Funny how no one mentions the successful 'plan Bs' when we win.
Coaching a heck of a lot more complicated than one or two 'plans'
-
A good coach would have reacted to Port much quicker and not allowed them to dictate terms.
A poor coach would've panicked when Westhoff went back & exposed his own defence too early & lost the game in the 2nd & 3rd quarters! Holding the Chaplin move back until later was the better option, we held our defensive structure for as long as possible & timed our move very nicely. Having their gun key forward playing loose at the wrong end for 3 quarters was actually a win for us, so let it happen! Can you see how Hinkley blinked & Hardwick didn't? Also, Hinkley failed to counter our dominant mid field, despite having other mid options (Robbie Grey going cold in a pocket while getting smashed in the middle?), was that good coaching from Hinkley?
-
Please.
Sending Chaplin forward was a last chance saloon move when it appeared the game was gone.
At the game it was obvious the Port move got them back in the game and while they were eating away at what was a sizeable lead the RFC box was stagnant.
Richmond forwards were waving frantically at the bench trying to get them to do something to square the contest again but nothing came.
We aren't talking about coming up with a new tactic here or launching some remarkable feat of planning that changes the game.
Having the opposition dropping a loose man into defence and then squaring the numbers is just a basic coaching principle, yet we sat frozen for 2 quarters and went from a dominant position to having to come from behind in the final moments to win.
Anyone who suggests that Hardwick is a good or even ok match-day coach is just being jingoistic, because there is no rational evidence that supports the notion.
-
Funny how no one mentions the successful 'plan Bs' when we win.
Coaching a heck of a lot more complicated than one or two 'plans'
Mr M, care to mention a few examples which has won us a game? I'm sure there are a few minor 'change ups' or tweaks but no fundamental plan Bs or even, simply, significant changes to our game style from quarter to quarter that have been noticeably effective. Not that I've noticed anyway.
When we do win it's off the persistence and attrition of a very very similar game plan combined with good teamwork and individual excellence from 3-4 players
-
At least we have established that Hardwick can devise & employ a plan B to win a match! ;D
-
At least we have established that Hardwick can devise & employ a plan B to win a match! ;D
Lol only in your mind JP. :huh
Anyhoot, examples please people.
-
At least we have established that Hardwick can devise & employ a plan B to win a match! ;D
I think we have established his best work is his plan p - panic.
-
One thing that we have established is that even when Dimma wins he loses
-
It's a simplistic view to suggest this is just a witch hunt.
I'm happy to give Hardwick his dues on his strengths, he is very good at creating a bond with his players for example.
But as a tactician/match-day coach he is very weak and that is crucial to be a top four side, let alone a premiership side.
-
It's a simplistic view to suggest this is just a witch hunt.
I'm happy to give Hardwick his dues on his strengths, he is very good at creating a bond with his players for example.
But as a tactician/match-day coach he is very weak and that is crucial to be a top four side, let alone a premiership side.
You are only as good as your cattle.......
-
It's a simplistic view to suggest this is just a witch hunt.
I'm happy to give Hardwick his dues on his strengths, he is very good at creating a bond with his players for example.
But as a tactician/match-day coach he is very weak and that is crucial to be a top four side, let alone a premiership side.
You are only as good as your cattle.......
Simplistic view again. Is this the depth of knowledge of the average Richmond fan? Geez.....
Some teams get more out of their cattle than others......
-
It's a simplistic view to suggest this is just a witch hunt.
I'm happy to give Hardwick his dues on his strengths, he is very good at creating a bond with his players for example.
But as a tactician/match-day coach he is very weak and that is crucial to be a top four side, let alone a premiership side.
You are only as good as your cattle.......
Simplistic view again. Is this the depth of knowledge of the average Richmond fan? Geez.....
Some teams get more out of their cattle than others......
Why do you think Hardwick hasn't hot the best out of a bad bunch rather than held back a good bunch?
-
It's a simplistic view to suggest this is just a witch hunt.
I'm happy to give Hardwick his dues on his strengths, he is very good at creating a bond with his players for example.
But as a tactician/match-day coach he is very weak and that is crucial to be a top four side, let alone a premiership side.
You are only as good as your cattle.......
Simplistic view again. Is this the depth of knowledge of the average Richmond fan? Geez.....
Some teams get more out of their cattle than others......
Why do you think Hardwick hasn't hot the best out of a bad bunch rather than held back a good bunch?
I reckon he's got an average amount out of an average list
-
Agreed, I think a very good coach could have created a team that could compete in the top 4.
Hardwick may still do that but I think a Malthouse/Lyon type who squeeze everything out of their lists by being strong tactically would have already had us finishing higher than 8th.
-
What about Sheedy
-
It's a simplistic view to suggest this is just a witch hunt.
I'm happy to give Hardwick his dues on his strengths, he is very good at creating a bond with his players for example.
But as a tactician/match-day coach he is very weak and that is crucial to be a top four side, let alone a premiership side.
You are only as good as your cattle.......
Simplistic view again. Is this the depth of knowledge of the average Richmond fan? Geez.....
Some teams get more out of their cattle than others......
not so simplistic imo. just a straight up reason why we have not progressed.
hardwick may well have the cattle to play bruise free footy but he certainly doesnt have the cattle to play one v one or the keepings of type of game that is needed at times. every time i have seen an opposing side go 1v 1 against us we have struggled, we dont have enough players with the right skillset to play keepings off. we struggle to implement zones because we dont have the players who will work both ways. it is very much a cattle problem
i remember my mate at the eagles going crook all the time in 03 04 05 06 about them playing zones. they would always get into trouble and then go one v one and get up and win most games. he couldnt work out why 1 v1 was not the #1 way to play and if that failed try something different.
the game is bloody simple you have an opponent beat him, have enough players capable of doing that and all the hoo haaa with zones and roling zones etc is moot to some degree..
-
I'm happy to give Hardwick his dues on his strengths, he is very good at creating a bond with his players for example.
Because they've all cried together so much?z
-
It's a simplistic view to suggest this is just a witch hunt.
I'm happy to give Hardwick his dues on his strengths, he is very good at creating a bond with his players for example.
But as a tactician/match-day coach he is very weak and that is crucial to be a top four side, let alone a premiership side.
You are only as good as your cattle.......
Simplistic view again. Is this the depth of knowledge of the average Richmond fan? Geez.....
Some teams get more out of their cattle than others......
not so simplistic imo. just a straight up reason why we have not progressed.
hardwick may well have the cattle to play bruise free footy but he certainly doesnt have the cattle to play one v one or the keepings of type of game that is needed at times. every time i have seen an opposing side go 1v 1 against us we have struggled, we dont have enough players with the right skillset to play keepings off. we struggle to implement zones because we dont have the players who will work both ways it is very much a cattle problem
i remember my mate at the eagles going crook all the time in 03 04 05 06 about them playing zones. they would always get into trouble and then go one v one and get up and win most games. he couldnt work out why 1 v1 was not the #1 way to play and if that failed try something different.
the game is bloody simple you have an opponent beat him, have enough players capable of doing that and all the hoo haaa with zones and roling zones etc is moot to some degree..
:clapping :clapping :clapping
Allow softy pansies a run in the seniors sets a bad mediocre standard. Lets start breeding players who aren't afraid of getting dirty & are uncompromising in their commitment to the contest.
Someone once said, "unless you can win your own ball you wont be wearing a richmond jumper"......
.........still waiting