One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: mightytiges on May 14, 2017, 07:41:19 PM
-
Here's the full vision: http://www.afl.com.au/video/2017-05-14/mundy-sinks-tigers-after-the-siren
Here's some stills of that fateful final centre bounce set up. I though I'd do a breakdown review.
(http://oneeyed-richmond.com/images/tactics/centrebouncesetup1.jpg)
Centre square match-ups:
Nankervis - Sandilands
Cotchin - Blakely
Grigg - Fyfe
Dusty - Neale
Not for the first time, we fail to protect the defensive side of a stoppage with just one Tiger (Cotch) on the defensive of the centre circle.
We have no runners set up on the defensive side of the centre square protecting and moving inside the square to block any bursts out of the centre. Rioli is on one wing by himself but remains out of the play while on the other wing the Tiger player (?) sticks to his direct opponent.
Freo sets up with two players on their defensive side of the centre circle (Neale & Fyfe) and with 3 runners on the HB centre-square line sprinting towards the centre once the ball was bounced (Fig. 2). Neale moves off Dusty by a metre while Grigg/Fyfe & Cotch/Blakely pairing remain within bodily contact.
(http://oneeyed-richmond.com/images/tactics/centrebouncesetup2.jpg)
The ruck contest sees the ball remain within the centre circle confines behind Sandilands. Grigg attempts to reach up and gather/drag down the ball but has Fyfe right on him pressuring him. Sandilands get a hand in and spins himself and the ball around himself to the outside. Dusty gets sucked into towards Sandilands leaving Neale to gather the loose ball freely on the outside of the contest (Fig. 3).
(http://oneeyed-richmond.com/images/tactics/centrebouncesetup3.jpg)
No players protecting the defensive side of the stoppage and centre square allows Neale to run a whole 40m to reach their HF centre square line with no one coming at him (Fig. 4).
(http://oneeyed-richmond.com/images/tactics/centrebouncesetup4.jpg)
The pass then ends up with Mundy on the lead 25m out on a 45 degree angle in front of a trailing Grimes. No other Tigers in front to block the space to lead into. Mundy then kicks the winning goal.
So that's about 4-5 schoolboy errors in one 21 second play :banghead.
-
Why did Rioli stand by himself
Amazing actually
Wasn't going to influence anything standing there
-
Yep, some fan favourites had complete defensive brainfades in that play. Rioli was lining up on the wing for a typical centrebounce rather than finding a man or being defensive side on the square sprinting in to block any breakout runs like Neale's; Dusty also needed to stick to Neale like glue; Nank must have been ballwatching as he was completely out of the play after the initial ruck contest. WP saying in another thread there was no huddle in the middle between the mids to discuss how we would set up would partly explain the shamozzle of schoolboy errors that was to come :banghead.
-
Remember Paul Roos lambasting the worst 6 seconds of footy ever a few years back. This has dejavu all over it. Our players just aren't game aware smart. Some players are instinctive about the stage of the game others are just not aware. I think the problem lies in recruitment. You need smart footballers. Not IQ but footy smarts.
-
We could analyze this forever. Fact is we were out played for 3 quarters and that's why we lost .
-
Watch the replay if you can... Ellis kicks the goal and everyone signals to go behind the ball. Don't accept the rubbish that the on field leaders didn't do their jobs marshalling the troops. This happened clear as day. Even Ellis was instructing guys to get back, whilst others were celebrating.
How many players would you expect back with 20 seconds to go? I'd have every single forward in the defense except maybe 1, that player would have been Jack to come off the square a million miles an hour to effect any mid to go backward to go forward. 2 wings to stay where they are, 3 mids and a ruckman = 7 players. You'd have 11 players behind the ball. Watch the vision we had 9. Is that enough, could argue it is but if you look at the vision we only had 1 spare player which was Rance, the rest were all manned up. Rance was in the right, have to have an extra player in the goal square but absolute criminal we didn't have a spare coming off CHB to effect a midfielder running off. Look at Neale below who ran from the middle of the ground away from Grigg, no1 is able to come at him cause everyone stays on their player. No spare to effect the kick. We had Rioli all on his own on the Wing, should have gone to CHB and filled the space, he is so close to the bench, they should have instructed him. Plus there is a spare Freo player to Neales left who could have easily got a handball and had a shot at goal.
http://imgur.com/rXAxJXs
No spare to fill the hole to stop Mundy leading to a ball that was kicked to space. See below. So point being, 9 players wasn't enough. 1 player should be coming off CHB as a spare player and another should be filling the hole in D50 to not allow any short kick to a mark. Had to force them to go long where Rance could have been effective as the spare player.
http://imgur.com/ItsY9Qd
by dAmIeN HaRdWck
-
Why did Rioli stand by himself
Amazing actually
Wasn't going to influence anything standing there
Correct, was there set up before anyone else was ready, why didn't the bench see this and tell him to to get back? 25 metres away from the bench..
-
We could analyze this forever. Fact is we were out played for 3 quarters and that's why we lost .
Disagree, the first 3 qtrs were why we were down by 5 goals at 3 qtr time. The reason between winning and losing is the proof in the pudding of the last 22 seconds of the game. The game was there to be won, we did all the hard work but failed to complete the job. That is simply, in black and white why we lost. We spoil Mundy or effect Neale's kick in some way and we simply win.
-
stuffn poofters
-
How pathetic was Houli in his last involvement, if u could call it that.
-
The worst 21 seconds in football? How the Tigers lost it.
By Domenic Favata
SEN
15 May 2017
ANALYSIS
Some would say Richmond’s two-point loss to the Fremantle Dockers on Sunday afternoon was typical of a club that have been crippled by mediocrity for over 35 years.
Others would point the finger at the coach, poor officiating at stages or the lack of Tiger organisation.
The fact of the matter is, Richmond were rubbish for three quarters and probably didn’t deserve to win and Damien Hardwick is most certainly not at fault for his team’s self-destruction.
But with 21 seconds to play following what appeared to be Brandon Ellis’ match-winner, the Tigers had the match ‘won’ so expectations naturally pivot.
This is where the onus is on the players and the players alone.
Let’s take a look at how Richmond lost this game, but also how the Dockers made every post a winner to give Mundy his second single-handed slaying of the Tigers after the siren in two years.
(https://images.contentful.com/u8w3l566ay8a/6j3Edl8BlCWOEagooKimGC/ddc961cfa91931a08ed5ebdd5eee6907/richfrem-1.png)
21 seconds to go, here is the Richmond setup for the restart. Note, Dustin Martin circled in red manning up the Fremantle sweeper Lachie Neale and quite loose in his checking. Also, there appears to be two Richmond players manning up three Dockers on the back of the square, with Daniel Rioli on his own on the wing.
(https://images.contentful.com/u8w3l566ay8a/5GYYWJyvMkGCmKc0yooQiu/8726fbf9428b6aed6c08429450f900fe/richfrem-2.png)
Martin is drawn to the footy at the bounce, meaning his already loose distance between him and Neale is only further stretched. While the movement does not cost Richmond the game, note the three Dockers who began alongside two Richmond forwards on the back of the square, streaming forward unchecked. Safe to say if Neale did not get the footy, one of those three would have.
(https://images.contentful.com/u8w3l566ay8a/6lMc0ITPyM4CYm0A68qSmy/759345aebf8f12e525de205e29e3d79c/richfrem-3.png)
This is where the Dockers must be praised, with Aaron Sandilands’ outstanding performance capped off by this shepherd on the loose Martin, allowing Neale a free run at the ball with yards of space in front of him.
(https://images.contentful.com/u8w3l566ay8a/6azU6Qm4UM2kuEQMqw40eW/64570571f7a29cac48a41cb8b617dd7f/richfrem-4.png)
Neale storms away as Martin is left on his haunches in the centre square after bearing the brunt of a 122kg wall.
This is where it gets messy…
(https://images.contentful.com/u8w3l566ay8a/51iIPdGNQc80SAi8sUqo60/8ee593471e4312ce575e1c9e6c8c25ca/richfrem-5.png)
Without knowing exactly how many Richmond players have remained in the forward half, there appears to be nine Tigers in the defensive 50, all allocated a man and just one loose back, Alex Rance in the goalsquare.
Which means, with four players in the centre square, two on the wings and two off the back of the square, there is only one player unaccounted for, presumably deep inside the Richmond forward line.
One loose back with 20 seconds to go…
You’re dammed if you do and you’re dammed if you don’t here.
The Tigers could have flooded those two wingman and those in the forward 50 behind the ball to take up those spots marked with a white or we are left with what transpired.
If the Tigers did indeed choose to flood the defence, we’re probably left with those three or more Dockers off the back of the square all on their own, who may have still won the footy with the clearance.
Richmond didn’t flood numbers back and the result was a pin-point kick into a pocket of space for David Mundy to run onto the footy. Hardly defendable in that situation unless there are numbers back to support.
Rance is guarding the goalsquare for the typical panic long bomb in the dying stages, only Neale’s class and temperament effectively made Rance’s starting position redundant.
As an ‘armchair expert’ you like to think you know more than the players. The fact is, most teams in that situation would pride themselves and practice on winning the ball at the source, the centre-clearance.
The simple fact is the Tigers were brushed aside with relative ease and while flooding numbers back behind the ball is the obvious plan of attack, the craft of Neale and co. proved that once again, footy is no obvious game.
The Tigers are now the pride owners of both the worst 21 second and 25 seconds (Karmichael Hunt - Gold Coast - 2012) of football in AFL history.
https://www.sen.com.au/news/2017/05/14/the-worst-21-seconds-in-football-how-the-tigers-lost-it/
-
Watch the replay if you can... Ellis kicks the goal and everyone signals to go behind the ball. Don't accept the rubbish that the on field leaders didn't do their jobs marshalling the troops. This happened clear as day. Even Ellis was instructing guys to get back, whilst others were celebrating.
Not disputing the arm flapping straight after the goal to get people to go back but there was no really discussion in the middle before the final bounce by the mids and that's unforgivable
-
We had 3 players in the forward half, 2 on the wings, 4 in the middle and 9 in the back half. Fro had 5 in the back, 1 on a wing, 4 in the middle and 8 in the forward half.
-
If I hear one more fool saying that we didn't deserve to win I'll spew up! In competitive sport we have a mechanism that determines this, it is called a 'score'. We were in front with effectively 19 secs to go, counting for the bounce and ruck contact. All we had to do was force 1 stoppage.... let that sink in - 1 stoppage. We had 4 opportunities to affect the outcome: 1/ positive tap - clearance or stoppage 2/ pressure/tackle if tap lost - stoppage 3/ pressure the ball carrier (all directions) causing the player to bomb long 4/ backline possession/clearance/stoppage/point.
The setup was haphazard: coaching/ leadership group issue
Nank, Martin and Grimes outplayed: player issue.
-
I think Dominic was reading MTs expert analysis. Good job MT, send it to the RFC and let them know your available as tactics consultant. :clapping
-
If I hear one more fool saying that we didn't deserve to win I'll spew up! In competitive sport we have a mechanism that determines this, it is called a 'score'. We were in front with effectively 19 secs to go, counting for the bounce and ruck contact. All we had to do was force 1 stoppage.... let that sink in - 1 stoppage. We had 4 opportunities to affect the outcome: 1/ positive tap - clearance or stoppage 2/ pressure/tackle if tap lost - stoppage 3/ pressure the ball carrier (all directions) causing the player to bomb long 4/ backline possession/clearance/stoppage/point.
The setup was haphazard: coaching/ leadership group issue
Nank, Martin and Grimes outplayed: player issue.
We didn't deserve to win. We have a mechanism called a final score that proves that.
Now I may be a fool but if we can't set up properly to defend the final 21 seconds then that is further proof we didn't deserve to win.
-
If I hear one more fool saying that we didn't deserve to win I'll spew up! In competitive sport we have a mechanism that determines this, it is called a 'score'. We were in front with effectively 19 secs to go, counting for the bounce and ruck contact. All we had to do was force 1 stoppage.... let that sink in - 1 stoppage. We had 4 opportunities to affect the outcome: 1/ positive tap - clearance or stoppage 2/ pressure/tackle if tap lost - stoppage 3/ pressure the ball carrier (all directions) causing the player to bomb long 4/ backline possession/clearance/stoppage/point.
The setup was haphazard: coaching/ leadership group issue
Nank, Martin and Grimes outplayed: player issue.
We didn't deserve to win. We have a mechanism called a final score that proves that.
Now I may be a fool but if we can't set up properly to defend the final 21 seconds then that is further proof we didn't deserve to win.
I was referring to that point in time when we were in front and those who say that if it remained we didn't deserve to win in any case. It is a distraction used regularly by our so-called coach to obfuscate a loss. For comical reasons we didn't win so no we didn't deserve it in the end.
-
If I hear one more fool saying that we didn't deserve to win I'll spew up! In competitive sport we have a mechanism that determines this, it is called a 'score'. We were in front with effectively 19 secs to go, counting for the bounce and ruck contact. All we had to do was force 1 stoppage.... let that sink in - 1 stoppage. We had 4 opportunities to affect the outcome: 1/ positive tap - clearance or stoppage 2/ pressure/tackle if tap lost - stoppage 3/ pressure the ball carrier (all directions) causing the player to bomb long 4/ backline possession/clearance/stoppage/point.
The setup was haphazard: coaching/ leadership group issue
Nank, Martin and Grimes outplayed: player issue.
We didn't deserve to win. We have a mechanism called a final score that proves that.
Now I may be a fool but if we can't set up properly to defend the final 21 seconds then that is further proof we didn't deserve to win.
I was referring to that point in time when we were in front and those who say that if it remained we didn't deserve to win in any case. It is a distraction used regularly by our so-called coach to obfuscate a loss. For comical reasons we didn't win so no we didn't deserve it in the end.
Fair enough, mate
-
Can anyone tell me if we had the same set-up in other memorable close losses in recent years as in: Cotchin, Martin and Grigg? I'm feeling dejavu. Quality players yes, but if they are serial offenders (in that clutch situation) we may need to have a rethink.
-
If I hear one more fool saying that we didn't deserve to win I'll spew up! In competitive sport we have a mechanism that determines this, it is called a 'score'. We were in front with effectively 19 secs to go, counting for the bounce and ruck contact. All we had to do was force 1 stoppage.... let that sink in - 1 stoppage. We had 4 opportunities to affect the outcome: 1/ positive tap - clearance or stoppage 2/ pressure/tackle if tap lost - stoppage 3/ pressure the ball carrier (all directions) causing the player to bomb long 4/ backline possession/clearance/stoppage/point.
The setup was haphazard: coaching/ leadership group issue
Nank, Martin and Grimes outplayed: player issue.
:clapping
-
If I hear one more fool saying that we didn't deserve to win I'll spew up! In competitive sport we have a mechanism that determines this, it is called a 'score'. We were in front with effectively 19 secs to go, counting for the bounce and ruck contact. All we had to do was force 1 stoppage.... let that sink in - 1 stoppage. We had 4 opportunities to affect the outcome: 1/ positive tap - clearance or stoppage 2/ pressure/tackle if tap lost - stoppage 3/ pressure the ball carrier (all directions) causing the player to bomb long 4/ backline possession/clearance/stoppage/point.
The setup was haphazard: coaching/ leadership group issue
Nank, Martin and Grimes outplayed: player issue.
:clapping
Yeh, look .... That's what happened.
-
The behind the goal view (see below) is even more damning and embarrassing :facepalm.
How the Tigers lost after the siren to the Fremantle Dockers
Anthony Colangelo
The Age
15 May 2017
An AFL club tactical analyst (who wished to remain anonymous) revealed to Fairfax Media what went wrong for Richmond and what went right for Fremantle.
He described the match's final moments as "a victory for Fremantle's win-the-game scenario training and a failure for Richmond's defend-the-lead scenario training".
Step 1 - Lachie Neale goes to Dustin Martin
The analyst said it is well known among AFL clubs that the way to stop Martin is to put an attacking player on him because "he struggles to defend those kinds of players".
That's why Neale went to Martin. First win for Fremantle.
"Martin's idea of bodywork at any stoppage is to fend off when he has the ball. He isn't great at stopping a player getting the ball," the analyst said.
Martin didn't make body contact with Neale and as the ball was bounced Neale "sells a little side step deception to Martin to wrong foot him". Neale was then free to run.
On the right of the centre circle, Dustin Martin is side-stepped by Lachie Neale. All other Richmond mids at the center bounce have body contact, except for Martin.
(http://www.smh.com.au/content/dam/images/g/w/5/6/d/v/image.imgtype.articleLeadwide.620x349.png/1494827176832.png)
Luckily for Fremantle, Shaun Grigg didn't win the ball after Sandilands' initial tap, but Sandilands did manage to force the ball to the right side of the ground (if you're watching from behind Fremantle's goals) knowing that Neale would be there. Neale knew Sandilands would tap to that side, the analyst believed.
Step 2 – Richmond half backs are deceived by Fremantle half forwards
The analyst said behind the goal footage that he watched showed that before the centre bounce Fremantle's half forwards purposefully walked slowly away from the central-half-forward area and centre square line.
It meant there was space for Neale to run into and kick inside 50 with no pressure from in front of him. Second win for Fremantle.
"Only one Richmond defender needed to rush Neale but none did because they'd been sucked away from that area by their man and they were too worried to leave their man," the analyst said.
Lachie Neale (on centre square line) was able to run to that point unchallenged from in front of him.
(http://www.smh.com.au/content/dam/images/g/w/5/6/v/4/image.imgtype.articleLeadwide.620x349.png/1494831180707.png)
"If Richmond rushed Neale he might be forced to step a player, kick the ball high into the forward 50 or even handball over the top."
This would have brought Alex Rance into play, the analyst said, because he sat loose and deep in Fremantle's forward 50 anticipating the long, high kick. Instead Neale was able to pick out David Mundy.
Step 3 – Richmond defensive "caravans" and all that right-side space
While Fremantle's high forwards moved their opponents away from the space Neale wanted to run into, the Dockers' deeper forwards moved to the left side of the forward 50 so the right side remained free.
This was where Mundy led to. The analyst said Richmond's defenders were too worried about playing on their man from behind, another fatal flaw. Third win for Fremantle.
Fremantle's forwards have dragged Richmond's defenders away from the right side of the ground to create space for Mundy's lead.
(http://www.smh.com.au/content/dam/images/g/w/5/2/l/1/image.imgtype.articleLeadwide.620x349.png/1494821509088.png)
"If Richmond's defenders set up in a zone to guard all of the dangerous space it's more likely we would have seen a contested situation," the analyst said.
"Dylan Grimes also should have played in front of Mundy and Rance should have been able to get to the contest", the analyst said. "Ideally Grimes and Rance would have sandwiched Mundy and spoiled if Richmond had been defending in more of a zone."
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/richmond-tigers/how-the-richmond-tigers-lost-after-the-siren-to-the-fremantle-dockers-20170515-gw5398.html
-
Hardwick was a defender, you know....
-
So one thing I would like to know was where was Elton and Jack???
Was it their own great idea to remain in the F50 or was it dimwits?
As much as I would like to blame the coach, I think those 2 should hang their heads in shame for not racing to the backline when bellis was waving his arms around.
-
I understand the need to leave at least one player forward of centre for the quick kick to at least create a little pressure up forward which is probably what we were backing ourselves to do with playing Martin at the bounce. The previous article beat me to it but I too questioned why we had Dusty in the centre bounce for the reasons they explained (good clearance player but lacks defensive mindset). Why not play another decent clearance player who can also be defensive like Edwards or Lambert. What you lose in clearance ability you gain in defense and the chance to create another stoppage. I reckon you could then send Dusty forward because everyone knows how good he is at winning or at least neutralising the 1-on-1's and the flow on effect then says you could then send Elton and/or Reiwoldt into the back line to clog another hole.
-
The whole thing was a disgrace.
Not the level of professionalism required.
-
I understand the need to leave at least one player forward of centre for the quick kick to at least create a little pressure up forward which is probably what we were backing ourselves to do with playing Martin at the bounce. The previous article beat me to it but I too questioned why we had Dusty in the centre bounce for the reasons they explained (good clearance player but lacks defensive mindset). Why not play another decent clearance player who can also be defensive like Edwards or Lambert. What you lose in clearance ability you gain in defense and the chance to create another stoppage. I reckon you could then send Dusty forward because everyone knows how good he is at winning or at least neutralising the 1-on-1's and the flow on effect then says you could then send Elton and/or Reiwoldt into the back line to clog another hole.
Anthony Miles would have been perfect in the square
-
I understand the need to leave at least one player forward of centre for the quick kick to at least create a little pressure up forward which is probably what we were backing ourselves to do with playing Martin at the bounce. The previous article beat me to it but I too questioned why we had Dusty in the centre bounce for the reasons they explained (good clearance player but lacks defensive mindset). Why not play another decent clearance player who can also be defensive like Edwards or Lambert. What you lose in clearance ability you gain in defense and the chance to create another stoppage. I reckon you could then send Dusty forward because everyone knows how good he is at winning or at least neutralising the 1-on-1's and the flow on effect then says you could then send Elton and/or Reiwoldt into the back line to clog another hole.
Anthony Miles would have been perfect in the square
Good call :thumbsup
-
We had 3 players in the forward half, 2 on the wings, 4 in the middle and 9 in the back half. Fro had 5 in the back, 1 on a wing, 4 in the middle and 8 in the forward half.
You would think something like this would work better:
1 player in the forward half in case of a clearance > ideally somebody like Rioli who can run down a loose ball
3 outside the square > defensive side, one central and two on the opposing corners near the wings to run in and congest the square/cause a stoppage
4 in the middle > strong stoppage players here. Miles (if he was playing!), Cotchin, Dusty, Caddy etc
10 in the D50 > 8 manned up and two loose, about 30m out from goal on 30-45 degree angles to cover a centre/pocket ball
But hey what would we know <sigh>
-
Dimma talking about the last 21 seconds today:
Hardwick said the team had worked through the final centre bounce of that match in this week's review, acknowledging that the players had not set up correctly.
"There's some things there that we could have definitely fixed, there's no doubt about that," the coach said.
"We didn't quite get our set-up right, but there's 18 moving parts and they've got to move pretty quickly with 20 seconds to go.
"We acknowledge the last 20 seconds, which in theory lost us the game, but for 80 per cent of that game we didn't play incredibly well at any stage."
Source: AFL website (http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-05-18/tigers-new-injury-concern-speedy-forward-butler-to-miss-gws)