That final centrebounce set up

[Go Richo 12]

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.

[Ruanaidh]

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.

[Go Richo 12]

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

[Ruanaidh]

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.

[tony_montana]

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.

[(•))(©™]

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.

Yeh, look .... That's what happened.

[one-eyed]

The behind the goal view (see below) is even more damning and embarrassing .


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.



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.



"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.



"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....

[Francois Jackson]

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.

[Yeahright]

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.

[🏅Dooks]

The whole thing was a disgrace.

Not the level of professionalism required.

[lamington]

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

[🏅Dooks]

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 

[Andyy]

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>

[one-eyed]

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