We have 20 gameplan rules

[one-eyed]

They displayed a stat on One Week At A Time that showed on the weekend we played on after mark as much as possible and it was the area we smashed North in. Obviously part of Dimma's gameplan and probably one of our 20 team rules Leppitsch talked about last year.

                   Marks  Play-on  
Richmond      105      50       48%
North             56       20       35%

[Infamy]

Those % are not what was displayed on screen
They showed Richmond at 48% and North at something like 35%

[one-eyed]

Those % are not what was displayed on screen
They showed Richmond at 48% and North at something like 35%

Your recollection is better than mine Infamy. Not sure where I got 56 from  . I'll edit my above post.

[one-eyed]

Lids said on the Sunday Footy Show that we are aiming for 24 turnovers per game.

[Muscles]

To force 24 turnovers from the opposition, MT?

OR

To commit 24 turnovers?

[one-eyed]

To force 24 turnovers from the opposition, MT?

OR

To commit 24 turnovers?

Last night it seemed the latter at times

The former Muscles. To force 24 turnovers from the opposition.

[Muscles]

Sorry, OE, called you MT by mistake!.

Forcing 24 turnovers is a big ask - that's 6 each quarter.  How many of those would we look to score from, do you think?

[one-eyed]

Forcing 24 turnovers is a big ask - that's 6 each quarter.  How many of those would we look to score from, do you think?

I guess it depends where the turnovers occur. Defensive side of the centre it would be about turning over the footy to prevent an opposition score and trying to hurt them on the rebound in transition while in our forward half you'd would hope we'd be aiming to score from every turnover especially inside forward 50. So on average maybe 50% = 3 scores per quarter. If accurate that's up to 12 goals from turnovers across the game.

[Muscles]

Not having access to the stats, I'd think that if we could consistently score six goals from turnovers in a game, we'd have to be reasonably competitive.  Eight or more goals from turnovers would have to see us winning well.

[one-eyed]

Not having access to the stats, I'd think that if we could consistently score six goals from turnovers in a game, we'd have to be reasonably competitive.  Eight or more goals from turnovers would have to see us winning well.

That sounds about right Muscles. I would say they would look at the net differential. If you're on the plus side you are more likely to be winning the game. In the Eagles-Dees game on Thursday night it was 8 goals to nil from turnovers in the Eagles favour at one stage and they won in a canter.

[one-eyed]

Oops I misheard what Lids said. The aim was 20 forward-half turnovers.


Deledio said it was Richmond's improved defensive pressure that had been the major reason why it had been able to compete with better sides.

"Damien, offensively, thinks we can play, but defensively is where we've struggled in the past," Deledio said on Sunday Footy Show.

"So we've had a real emphasis on laying those tackles and getting back in support of the defensive end.

"Damien said the goal was 20 forward-half turnovers and we achieved that. Contested footy is the biggest thing."

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/richmond-midfielder-like-a-new-first-round-pick/story-e6frf9jf-1226047957761