My 3 word player analysis V Richmond

[Dee Dee Ramone 89]

I disagree with a bit there JB. I thought Gus did a lot of good things despite one horrendous stuff up. Oscar on the other hand.....whenever the opposition kick an unlikely goal it seems that Oscar is involved and last night was no exception. 

[loges 6,767]

12 minutes ago, Dee Dee Ramone said:

I disagree with a bit there JB. I thought Gus did a lot of good things despite one horrendous stuff up. Oscar on the other hand.....whenever the opposition kick an unlikely goal it seems that Oscar is involved and last night was no exception. 

Harsh

[Old Man Rivers 326]

5 hours ago, Dee Dee Ramone said:

I disagree with a bit there JB. I thought Gus did a lot of good things despite one horrendous stuff up. Oscar on the other hand.....whenever the opposition kick an unlikely goal it seems that Oscar is involved and last night was no exception. 

What game were you watching champ?

The Dee's played dumb footy for most of the night... Oscar can hold his head high, he was not the reason we leaked goals. The kid is growing nicely into the key defence role..... 

[DV8 2,271]

17 hours ago, joeboy said:

Jones - never stopped trying

Jetta - just a shadow

McDonald - disciplined and impressive

Hibberd - brave but flawed

Oliver - mostly wasted possessions

Salem - soft under pressure

Tyson - missing second half

Hogan - played with heart

Stretch - just a plodder

Brayshaw - just a game

Harmes - continued poor season

Petracca - talents are wasted

Vince - game has passed

Neal-Bullen - irrelevant and fading

Gawn - effective but friendless

Kent - quiet before injury

Lever - 4 solid quarters

Wagner - disappeared after first

Weideman -little to excite

Hunt - continues downward spiral

Garlett - waste of space

Melksham - took his chances

Jones - never stops trying

Jetta - just a shadow

McDonald - disciplined and impressive needs more intensity

Hibberd - brave but flawed

Oliver - mostly wasted possessions

Salem - soft under pressure

Tyson - missing second half

Hogan - played with heart

Stretch - just a plodder

Brayshaw - just a game

Harmes - continued poor season

Petracca - talents are wasted

Vince - game has passed

Neal-Bullen - irrelevant and fading

Gawn - effective but friendless useless in play

Kent - quiet before injury good 1st Qtr

Lever - 4 solid quarters mistakes but improving

Wagner - disappeared after first a good game

Weideman -little to excite something to build-on

Hunt - continues downward spiral

Garlett - waste of selection

Melksham - kept us in-it

[Wunders 397]

In regards to Garlett, I'm a strong believer he is struggling with us playing a non-traditional forward set-up. Garlett is an all Australian crumbing forward. But you play Hogan in the midfield and leave no real 1v1 forward target to kick to that garlett can crumb the pack from and he's less effective.

Give me a normal forward line with Hogan, Weid, petracca, garlett and 2 other small forwards. Then we can capitalise on Gawns dominance and do the instinctive thing and kick it (giving our forwards a chance - instead of multiple crappy handballs in slippery conditions for no forward momentum and either a turn-over or a repeat stoppage ball up).

[old dee 23,782]

 

Weid was one of my highlights and his rucking was pretty good too. 

Gawn needs to calm his farm and stop smashing balls to the opposition goal side. Yes we know you are big and you win lots of hit outs, but just stop. 

We won most of our games last year without Gawn, he wins lots of taps but most go to no one and does bugger all else.

[Jibroni 4,987]

Not AFL elite.

 

 

[manny100 1,506]

Tigers pressure - caused errors fumbles

Tigers pressure - we looked timid

Our forward line - we can't score

Our forward line - Bring in TMc next week

Our forward line - TMc as our inside 50 anchorman.

Our forward line - Play Weid forward and relief ruck

Our forward line - let Hoges do what he  wants, mid forward whatever it takes

Vineys injury - if anyone's got some magic dust get it to the club urgently 

 

[DeleteUser 638]

 

In regards to Garlett, I'm a strong believer he is struggling with us playing a non-traditional forward set-up. Garlett is an all Australian crumbing forward. But you play Hogan in the midfield and leave no real 1v1 forward target to kick to that garlett can crumb the pack from and he's less effective.

Give me a normal forward line with Hogan, Weid, petracca, garlett and 2 other small forwards. Then we can capitalise on Gawns dominance and do the instinctive thing and kick it (giving our forwards a chance - instead of multiple crappy handballs in slippery conditions for no forward momentum and either a turn-over or a repeat stoppage ball up).

Interesting insight

[DeleteUser 638]

 

We won most of our games last year without Gawn, he wins lots of taps but most go to no one and does bugger all else.

Is that his failure, midfield's or coaches?

 

genuine question

[old dee 23,782]

23 hours ago, timbo said:

Is that his failure, midfield's or coaches?

 

genuine question

IMO it is his, I cannot believe that every week the other players are in the wrong place.  It happens most weeks.

[old dee 23,782]

On 4/25/2018 at 3:52 PM, Wunders said:

In regards to Garlett, I'm a strong believer he is struggling with us playing a non-traditional forward set-up. Garlett is an all Australian crumbing forward. But you play Hogan in the midfield and leave no real 1v1 forward target to kick to that garlett can crumb the pack from and he's less effective.

Give me a normal forward line with Hogan, Weid, petracca, garlett and 2 other small forwards. Then we can capitalise on Gawns dominance and do the instinctive thing and kick it (giving our forwards a chance - instead of multiple crappy handballs in slippery conditions for no forward momentum and either a turn-over or a repeat stoppage ball up).

Why we seem to have adopted a new forward line game plan to the one that produced good results last year astounds me. We almost played finals despite a lot of injuries. Why the big changes?

[Wunders 397]

10 minutes ago, old dee said:

Why we seem to have adopted a new forward line game plan to the one that produced good results last year astounds me. We almost played finals despite a lot of injuries. Why the big changes?

And we seem to be a contested ball / get hands on it first team, but because we have no forward structure we muck around with it (although we do try and run the (or multiple) spare(s) off the back of the square to get the easy receive), but why not play 1v1 (i.e. to our contested strength) and get that ball forward.. I'm sure im missing some key stuff as per why, but i've always been annoyed at our ability to get hands on the ball and not kick it forward and then stuff up..

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

1 hour ago, old dee said:

Why we seem to have adopted a new forward line game plan to the one that produced good results last year astounds me. We almost played finals despite a lot of injuries. Why the big changes?

A good question OD.  Would love a journo to ask this of Goodwin.  Why not hold the line generally, then improve marginally in certain areas AND maintain intensity for longer in games in an aim to step up into finals?

One aspect that might explain part of the change up could be the removal of Watts, who often played the medium tall outside link roll across HB and mid field, bringing the ball into the forwards or sharing it around and finding targets across the arc if there was no obvious inside option.  Apart from trying to make him more versatile and bring him into the game a little more to learn and assist, i wonder if the high roaming Hogan is an attempt to cover this loss a little.

But this leads me to the next question.  While allowing a free roaming Hogan would appear ok on the surface and is having some results in terms of his own performance, why would you have Hogan roaming so high while at the same time leave no potential goal kicking tall up forward as a target and/or to bring ball to ground for the smalls?

We had it with Pedders for Geelong and Brissy.  One of those matches we lost on the last kick of the day.  As is usual for us....opportunity missed.   But almost 2 for 2.

We then dumped Pedders after a very ordinary game against Brissy and ran with a smaller forward line.

Bugg then has an unusual goal kicking feast against the Roos (4.1) and with the successful return of Kent (3 goals) this helps to cover our lack of a tall marking/ pack busting forward (when Hogan was roaming).

The same set up is taken into the Hawks match looking for a repeat.  Bugg's goal kicking prowess returns to type kicking 0.4.  Kent continues his form into the 1st quarter kicking 3.  But the Hawks being the Hawks soon adjust.  Hogan playing mostly high again means there is no tall to really worry their backline and none of our smalls are able to impact either.  Jones on Mitchel and Harmes in the ruck for a couple of stints not helping us on the day also.

Goody then selects Weids in an attempt to correct the above structural issue and ensure the Harmes rucking fiasco is not repeated.  While not saying we would have won, to me the idea was correct but he had to run with a much more experienced bigger bodied Pedders if we wanted to hit the scoreboard a little more and split a few packs for the crumb.  That's assuming the forward line coach/es were capable of drumming / teaching front and square / staying down to the smaller / mid forwards.  Jeffy of course shouldn't need any teaching.... possibly motivating though!

We more than likely lose anyway but not by nearly 10 goals.  As you always say OD a loss is a loss but i would rather see us get our noses in front during parts of a match against last year's premiers than never able to lead at any stage.  Even a glimmer of hope can foster light at the end of the tunnel and reinforce belief IMO.  Especially among the younger portion of the group, where a winning culture is critical to their success/ development / growth and ultimately that of the club also.

Edited April 26, 2018 by Rusty Nails

[monoccular 17,417]

On 4/25/2018 at 1:28 AM, nosoupforme said:

........

 

Salem   a witch hunt?

.....

 

Was subtlety intended?

How many connected?