Author Topic: Round 4: Richmond v Melbourne  (Read 11453 times)

Gigantor

  • Guest
Re: Round 4: Richmond v Melbourne
« Reply #105 on: April 18, 2010, 08:47:27 PM »
jack i hate to misquote people but i think it was Damien who early in the week said that if people believe that Jack and mitch will be our number 1 and number 2 forwards in 2-3 years time they are mistaken..I think he even realises that these boys arent key position...in fairness thugh Jack R did work his butt off today..cant say the same for mitch though

TigerTimeII

  • Guest
Re: Round 4: Richmond v Melbourne
« Reply #106 on: April 18, 2010, 09:15:13 PM »
jack i hate to misquote people but i think it was Damien who early in the week said that if people believe that Jack and mitch will be our number 1 and number 2 forwards in 2-3 years time they are mistaken..I think he even realises that these boys arent key position...in fairness thugh Jack R did work his butt off today..cant say the same for mitch though

totally agree

jackstar is back again

  • Guest
Re: Round 4: Richmond v Melbourne
« Reply #107 on: April 18, 2010, 09:16:14 PM »
Even better reason to trade him then

Offline mightytiges

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 58590
  • Eat 'Em Alive!
    • oneeyed-richmond.com
Re: Round 4: Richmond v Melbourne
« Reply #108 on: April 18, 2010, 09:47:35 PM »
We ran out of juice about 5 mins into the 3rd quarter. The whole side looked as if they hit the wall. Once again we got killed on the spread and paid dearly for our turnovers. It's been the same pattern in all 4 games. Contested possies and clearances are fairly similar but we are getting smashed in uncontested possies and marks. The danger was always Melbourne being too quick for us. We were able to keep up for a half before the game opened up after half-time and we got blown away. It doesn't help either we don't get reward for effort on the scoreboard (through our own fault because we're crap). We should have been in front at quartertime and halftime based on general play.
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be - Pink Floyd

Offline Danog

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 1730
Re: Round 4: Richmond v Melbourne
« Reply #109 on: April 18, 2010, 09:48:52 PM »
We wouldn't get whole Riewoldt is worth in a trade.  He will be a gun once our forwardline gets going.  He's taking on the #1 defender at the moment.  If he could even take #2 he'd be a lot better.

TigerTimeII

  • Guest
Re: Round 4: Richmond v Melbourne
« Reply #110 on: April 18, 2010, 09:52:50 PM »
jack was fantastic today, if he were richo and kicked 3 .5 none of this talk would be going on

jacl was a gem today, and was a team man

hew wont be traded , he is too good and smart a footballer

his kicking will improve as teh team improves

he was our best today

Offline Penelope

  • Internet nuffer and sooky jellyfish
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12777
Re: Round 4: Richmond v Melbourne
« Reply #111 on: April 18, 2010, 10:05:41 PM »
Jeff Hogg had a back problem.


But he was Club Captain.

Jack Riewoldt cant kick and never will it seems

he doesnt miss them at training does he?

I saw him lifting his hand holding the ball as he kicks, you said he should lean over the ball as he kicks. That makes me think perhaps his problem is weight transfer. Just like a golf swing the weight has to from back foot to front foot, but sometimes when things arnt working weight goes back rather than forward and everything goes out of kilter.

At the moment his kicking for goal is his main fault in his game. You identify why and solve it, not trade him so someone else can fix it and reap the benefits
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways my ways,” says the Lord.
 
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are my ways higher than your ways,
And my thoughts than your thoughts."

Yahweh? or the great Clawski?

yaw rehto eht dellorcs ti fi daer ot reisae eb dluow tI

Offline Infamy

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 4426
  • For We're From Tigerland
Re: Round 4: Richmond v Melbourne
« Reply #112 on: April 18, 2010, 10:12:11 PM »
Ridiculous call to trade him, for a 21 year old kpp to be the solo tall in attack to be doing well as he's been doing and he'll get better too. Clearly his workrate has improved this year and he's getting more well built each year. It's also possible that the added work rate is making him more fatigued as he's taking his shot.

I've often noticed talls goal kicking conversion rate drop as they put on size, perhaps the added bulk changes their gait and they need to adjust to compensate. Nick Riewoldt went through a similar sort of thing, his goal kicking went pretty awol for a while, but is much better now.

Online camboon

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 2436
Re: Round 4: Richmond v Melbourne
« Reply #113 on: April 18, 2010, 10:20:48 PM »
He doesnt take enough steps in his run up and run in a straight line. He also trys for extra distance that throws his leg across his body- he can compensate for this, he needs practice his kicking  or goal but to trade him - FOR WHAT , (a  lucky dip ) draft pick or another sides reject.  :lol

PS: How old is he?????????????????

Online Chuck17

  • The Shaun Grugg of OER
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 13299
Re: Round 4: Richmond v Melbourne
« Reply #114 on: April 18, 2010, 10:39:56 PM »
21 I think

jackstar is back again

  • Guest
Re: Round 4: Richmond v Melbourne
« Reply #115 on: April 18, 2010, 10:54:07 PM »
Jeff Hogg had a back problem.


But he was Club Captain.

Jack Riewoldt cant kick and never will it seems

he doesnt miss them at training does he?

I saw him lifting his hand holding the ball as he kicks, you said he should lean over the ball as he kicks. That makes me think perhaps his problem is weight transfer. Just like a golf swing the weight has to from back foot to front foot, but sometimes when things arnt working weight goes back rather than forward and everything goes out of kilter.

At the moment his kicking for goal is his main fault in his game. You identify why and solve it, not trade him so someone else can fix it and reap the benefits

Agree to a ceratin extent.
Would be good trade value though

Offline torch

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 5339
  • 28YrM&8YrMRC 🏆🏆🏆 ‘17, ‘19-‘20; 2 x Attendee 🐯
Re: Round 4: Richmond v Melbourne
« Reply #116 on: April 18, 2010, 11:27:42 PM »
Melbourne's midfield absolutely murdered our midfield!

Martin, Jackson, Hislop, Edwards, Cotchin (a few times), Tuck (in the final quarter)

v

Jones, Trengove, McKenzie Moloney (Best On Ground), McDonald, Scully, Davey.

Martin's opponents were Moloney and Jones.

this match, Martin was average.

he got beaten badly.

Richmond always go to ground!

never keep their feet like Melbourne did!

plus! a big plus! hard, strong running together, which killed Richmond.

Deledio, Tambling never played in the midfield which was interesting!

Hislop, Jackson, Martin - the most combination in the midfield.

i noticed Edwards in the midfield during the first half.

Cotchin played across half back which is where Deledio was all day, same as Tuck which was interesting.

Hardwick gave Hislop a chance in the midfield, and IMO failed.

Melbourne's midfield always looked stronger and faster thanks to Jones and Moloney, i was impressed with their match, A LOT!

i hope Richmond and Martin actually watch other players keeping their feet!

you don't see Geelong's midfield loosing their feet!

Riewoldt was good!

kicking 3.4 was disappointing, but what i found more disappointing was that Riewoldt had to go into defence!

Post, Rance? where were they?

Riewoldt is a forward! leave him there!

Post? he is confused! forward or back?

play him forward! or play him in one position!

all pre-season in the backline and now throw forward and back?

MAKE UP YOUR MIND! because this is obviously not what we thought he would be!

needs to be at Coburg next week!

White, Rance, Collins, Edwards, Hislop - ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? trade them, delisted them or GET THEM STARTED IN A POSITION!

Astbury kicked three, but i hardly saw him in the second and third?

Nason i thought was good, competed, Moore was our best defender and good for his confidence!

Tambling played everywhere else but where he should be which is in the midfield!

Deledio across half back, new role, did not work, because he got beaten! beaten by himself!

Deledio is loosing confidence in himself.

Hardwick said that Deledio will play in the midfield.

well, he hasn't, however Hardwick is trying things which is good because he will understand a lot more which players can offer anything.

but when you are loosing by 56, 72, 55 and 55, the pressure will rise!

without Foley, you would say that our best midfield would be Martin, Deledio and Cotchin, well that has not happened at all this season so far.

Hardwick has got to understand that Edwards and Hislop have got to be off the list for next year!

Farmer could be a worry too!

our forward line structure and scoreboard pressure is still very average and you can not rely on Riewoldt to do everything.

did Mitch Morton play?

Taylor has class and skill, you can see, so play him!

i would keep, Martin. Astbury, Taylor, Dea, Nason all in the team for next week!

 >:(

Offline 1980

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 579
  • For We're From Tigerland
Re: Round 4: Richmond v Melbourne
« Reply #117 on: April 19, 2010, 12:05:20 AM »
Jeff Hogg had a back problem.


That was the best trade our club has done in 20 years.

jackstar is back again

  • Guest
Re: Round 4: Richmond v Melbourne
« Reply #118 on: April 19, 2010, 07:52:12 AM »
Jeff Hogg had a back problem.


That was the best trade our club has done in 20 years.

Would agree, need to do the same at the end of this year :thumbsup

Offline Infamy

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 4426
  • For We're From Tigerland
Re: Round 4: Richmond v Melbourne
« Reply #119 on: April 19, 2010, 10:01:19 AM »
Jeff Hogg had a back problem.


That was the best trade our club has done in 20 years.

Would agree, need to do the same at the end of this year :thumbsup
Trade our captain?

I actually agree, thought we should have last year actually