Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by TGR

  1. Weakness or threat....FIIK. Gawn and Weed are good overhead marks. When windy (Port & Geel) or wet (Geel), their one-wood is gone. We are left with sluggishness for ground balls, and minimal defensive pressure. In the dry, Gawn and Weed are big strengths, particularly Gawn. In the wet, Gawn becomes average and Weed becomes below average. Joel Smith has massive upside and can address a lot of our deficiencies.
  2. Weed - No defensive pressure Oliver - carried the team Brayshaw - B and F Neal-Bullen - Dispensable one-way runner Frost - 1 simpletons 0 Lockhart - O K Debut Trac - Swagger has gone Hibbert - Play him wing Melbourne - Watch out Essendon? Jetta - Was not bad Fritch - Kicking killed us Viney - Played with heart
  3. Agree with most of the comments here. Nightmare of a game. I am sticking fat though.
  4. Can't argue with it, although I don't see Gawn as the complainant. Melbourne owe Port Adelaide; but by the same token, I fear Geelong 'owe' us this round as we made them look weak in September last year.
  5. Narrow ground will suit us (team that aint good with spreading). We embarrassed Geelong in the final...They should come out breathing fire.
  6. Cheers. Tried to change it days ago, but couldn't.
  7. Good point. Is there a tackles broken stat?
  8. But Richmond, to my naked eye, slip tackles more with ball in hand, and lay more effective ones. Even without the outlier Martin, they bust through. No Spargos in Richmond’s forward line for instance. So according to the algorithm in the OP, breaking tackles equals more + 1 chains...which helps uncontested possession.
  9. AFL should be paying a Paul Roos to adjudicate these penalties. It's a bit like healthcare, in that it is art and science. They tried the pure 'science' with their formulae which came unstuck a couple of years ago. They have gone to pure art with the inconsistent Christian. They need a formula which can be overriden by a respected figure(s) like Roos or Matthews.
  10. We are walking against the herd. 90+% of supporters disagree with us, and it will be interesting to see how match committee views it. The great thing about Frost is that he rarely plays safe, in a team that can be a little timid and safe. FCS conservative predictable kick-ins when we were 4 goals down was too much to handle. With Frost, he has speed and momentum. Add a bit of bulk, secure footing, and a don't argue, and this guy will make life that much easier for his teammates.
  11. Samsung struggle. xbox yes
  12. I’d say when you clearly limped off the ground less than 1 week before after his one and only preseason game; superimposed on the fact that you are underdone and carrying one injury or more; and the fact that you have had a history of recalcitrant lower-limb conditions over the past 2 years; and the fact that this is round 1 and not a final...I’d say very much so. I have give a small benefit of a large doubt for long enough. His selection was pure madness.
  13. On The Couch last night, Roos conceded we weren't a quick team. He also suggested we weren't slow either...which might be a bit of legacy-protection.
  14. Common knowledge that my opinion has always been, from an on-field point-of-view, an absolute disaster of a decision. Made a team that wasn't quick in the first place.....undoubtedly slower. Our most important match in his time here was the WC PF. No leadership and a liability on the field when it the game was fast and hot. Leadership???? Tell me the leadership the bulldogs relied on in 2016? Bevo didn't get sucked in to draft in a superannuant and dress it up as "leadership needed". It is overrated, self-fulfilling, and can actually stifle growth of others that should be leaders now. An inward-looking decision from a desperate club ('he wants to come here') that was unsure of itself. Our need of leadership has been a self-fulfilling prophecy. It has made the potential leaders, sit back and let him lead. With every trade there is consequences. Lewis made a slow team, slower. Selling the farm for Lever, essentially removed us from the super-draft just gone, where kids have made an impact round 1.
  15. Excuse my snobbery and lack of grace. I just think that we are entering into an era of keyboard accountability post-Christchurch and Tayla Harris. Who knows, soon we might have to put our mug-shot in our avatar.
  16. Foot injuries can be easily diagnosed but difficult to know how long to rest. Depends on who is diagnosing them. If the diagnosis isn't A1, then it makes sense that one would have no idea about the rest variable. The injury can appear healed and then suddenly recur without warning. Disagree. It will 'recur without warning' if the initial diagnosis is not spot on, and other treatment variables (healing time etc...) haven't been ticked off. Those who have had plantar know that you can think your right only to realise that the pain or discomfort can sometimes be only a step away. Well if your physio has just given you what is in vogue (glute strengthening and pilates) at the time, then you are likely to be a step away from relapse. A little like achilles injuries. Rest and rehab are key components to recovery, but for a professional footballer or any sportsperson, rest is the saviour but also the enemy. Invariably, rest is imperative. Think about a broken bone, I don't give 2 hoots about the negative of rest, as if given a choice, give me rest. The longer the rest the more chance of recovery but try telling that to anyone who has a burning desire to be back on the ground. It would take a brave coach or club doctor to say to a player that they will not be allowed to train or play for 12 months or more. Didn't Viney rush back from foot surgery under 2 weeks for a dead rubber? He would have trained so that means 1 to 1.5 weeks. Who is talking about 12 months? For most recreational sportsmen and women, surgery is the last resort whereas for professional footballers it is normal and expected. If you don't do it, Clubs will be criticised. Everyone will ask "why was something not done sooner" when for most of us, it is the last resort. One thing's for sure. You should try and rehab the injury to avoid surgery, because if you embark on surgery, you still need to rehab afterwards. Once you start limping, you know there is a problem that can't be remedied by pain killers. Surgery is always last resort, whether you are man, woman, child, elite or amateur. Timeframes and priorities and/or lack of progress from conservative therapy might force one to opt for surgery. Viney rushed back for a dead rubber in latter 2017. Madness. Cut throat final...I could excuse Hemingway, I guess you didn't get the nobel prize for writing about foot injury and rehabilitation.
  17. Beware Clarkson full stop. He knew when to move on players that were about to reach their used-by date.
  18. 1. We didn’t get smashed with contested ball. Some of you are sneaking this falicy into explanations. 2. Agree. Hinkley built them up for this game all summer. Targeted Gawn (shame some teammates didnf fly a flag for him). Reassigned Watts. Injected speed. Consensus is that Lycett gave IP about the prelim decimation, whereas Goody said ‘we won’t look at that game...that’s the way we don’t usually play’.
  19. I have had some reservations since Viney stupidly played with his foot injury at the end of 2017 for what was essentially dead rubbers. He rushed back and suffered the consequences in 2018. With decision-making like that, you virtually deserve the consequences. Last week Viney played at Casey in the reserves, with knee taped and hobbling off. Was even shown in news footage after the senior game. That vision surely put him in doubt. On Saturday he was not running; he was ‘jobbling’, which is a cross between jogging and hobbling. These are obvious examples that someone on the outer can see. The fear is the extrapolation in relation to various cases that we don’t have the luxury of seeing. My question is does our medical staff have the brains and brawn. In other words, they might (questionable) make the right call, but does that carry weight to trump the overall hunch of the player and match committee? I doubt it. The tail is wagging the dog here, and I hope the dog is as smart as Lassie, and not Scooby Doo.
  20. What was ‘inadequate’ about the 3 on 1 that he won? I couldn’t think of more pressure than a 1-on-3? Hence, your summation is glib. If you want a definition of ‘woeful’ I refer you to Lewis’ preliminary final performance.
  21. Say what you want, but who could argue that Watts couldn’t have fulfilled Lewis’s role as a back with an easy role. I have said it repeatedly over the past 2 years. As for a disgraceful post I will are you and raise you a lot of the rubbish that demo land simpletons have directed to him.
  22. Read the thread opener. I said that Tim Kelly, Sam Mitchell and Dusty would help our uncontested possession. It’s not all about leg speed, but it’s not all about kicking it forward and hitting targets either. First, this does not help you get the ball back. Second, if you hit safe targets in non-dangerous positions you can slow yourself up and allow teams to get numbers back. Third, I saw ‘good’ kicks to Spargo heading toward the city end. They hit their target, but with a defender on his heels, and the fact that Spargo is c-grade overhead, you are dancing with the devil. 6/6/6 and other rules have been the biggest changer to the game perhaps in its history. No surprise that most of the prelim finalists, who had 1 month less prep to think about and train for the quantum leap actually lost. Conversely, the sides that injected youth and speed (Geelong and Port) had their best wins of the modern era.
  23. Agree BUT....that was when contested was king.
  24. Hawthorn under Clarkson. Only Cyril and Hill and maybe Smith had genuine leg speed. Geelong under Thompson? I see where you are going saying one swallow does not make a spring. I rarely judge on the basis of one performance. Geelong beat Collingwood on Friday night...and the Pies will be premiers to make the point. Kicking efficiency stats require caution. If I have the ball in time and space (work rate, and relative leg speed required) AND the receiver has busted his [censored] to be out on his own, then I could bloody kick it to him with good efficiency. OK I am Hibberd coming out of deep defence under pressure, I look up....Viney is incapable of sprinting free...so is Jones...Gawn ain’t quick and took no contested marks....the wind is bloody gusty... Of course my kicking efficiency is going to be average. This thread is about thinking more than one dimensionally about a problem. If you think kicking efficiency is all about a ball drop and foot contact, then your thinking half dimensionally.
  25. Much debate in the past 24 hours is about whether we really lack outside speed. We can all look at this a bit simply and directly correlate this with uncontested possession numbers. But what are the other related variables and factors? We lack speed, but does that mean we wouldn't be assisted by a Sam Mitchell (circa 2012), Tim Kelly or Dustin Martin? These players aren't quick, but would they help our uncontested possession crisis? I think they would, so it can't be all about leg speed. Despite the recency of the 6/6/6, the league has been clear on its want to reduce congestion. Congestion was our friend, and favoured teams that were hard inside with quick hands in congestion. Some of our inside work last year reminded me of Sydney in 2005/6 as well as the Bulldogs in 2016. Collingwood's quick hands in 2018 was elite too. So as the game decongests (quicker ball-ups, decisions over ball-up, 6/6/6, kick-out play-on etc...), uncontested possession is about to be gold. This ugly duckling of 2005-2018 (bar Clarkson/Hawthorn) is about to become the go-to stat of most games hereon. Leg-speed counts quite a bit toward uncontested possession; but what else. Surely there are teams without elite leg-speed that are OK with uncontested possession. So what are the additional factors? What makes the sum of the parts more whole? Foot skills have got to be a factor. Clarkson's Hawthorn had foot skills of the highest percentile. They were able to start a chain from D50, and not rely on clearance-dominance and contested possession. As stated, they were the exception when contested was king. Uncontested possession requires a chain to start and continue obviously. So what else, other than leg-speed and foot skills will enable a chain to start and continue. The ability to break a tackle must be relevant. As soon as this happens, a +1 instantly occurs, and overlap can happen. Dustin Martin in 17/18 has been the best, and regularly gave Richmond a +1 and overlap chain. Despite being dragged down yesterday, I have faith in Petracca being elite at breaking a tackle. I think Brayshaw's ability to evade a tackler is grossly underrated as well. Oliver's quick hands are elite in evading a tackle, but this delegates responsibility to the player who has just received the pill in close, and doesn't necessarily augment a chain starting and spreading to the outside. The other 'non-speed' component is lateral speed or change-of-direction speed. Sam Mitchell was like treacle in a straight-line, but somehow could zig-and-zag quicker than most. Tim Kelly has a bit of Sam Mitchell and Brayshaw about him. Not electric, but slices through. Fox Footy (Lyon with Roos agreeing) also mentioned the A2 and A3 having faith in the A1 to get the ball. In other words, does the A1 (person about to get the pill) really need support in close. Yesterday's example was Petracca (identifying this near the city end) peeling off offensively and dangerously, and having faith that his teammate would win the possession. Other factors involve defensive spread (which primarily require leg-speed), workrate and restricting dangerous space. Alternatives? If you don't do well with uncontested possession, then you have an unhealthy reliance on winning clearances and gaining territory into F50. You also have an unhealthy reliance on your forwards keeping the pill in our forward 50. Mooney on Fox Footy yesterday overheard (3/4 time break) that Port didn't rate our forwards applying pressure, and coaching staff advised Port's backs to take stock coming out of their backline. Have we built a list that incorporates all these variables? I think it is important to start judging players on the whole, rather than the simple (good v bad, slow v fast). Spargo is quick, but not lightening. He rarely breaks a tackle. I don't think his change of direction speed is great either. Spargo needs bulk (to break a tackle) amongst other things to earn a spot. Lewis should retire now. Other than his foot skills, I can only see him being a liability in the decongested era. I have said repeatedly over the past few years, Watts could have done Lewis's onfield role with much more upside. Frost is the new whipping boy. But the simpletons are mad thinking he is our greatest problem. He is super-quick. His change of direction was hampered by wearing ice-skates yesterday. When he gets it, he attracts 2-3 opposition, which in theory should create the overlap opportunity. I would like to see him bulk up a bit and break a few more tackles. Hunt - must play. Speed, change-of-direction and overlap. With 6/6/6 dump kicks into F50 will now go to 1-on-1s or 2-on-2s more often. Brayshaw - tackle evasion/breaking is understated; foot skills are better than what he has been given credit for; his non-dominant side foot skills are on the way (not there yet) to what Mitchell's was like. Melbourne under Goodwin and Roos have built a list of competitors that are suited to congestion. On paper, it is a 'pretty good list', but when it is judged on these variables, it comes up short. pTGR
  • Create New...