It's a HUN article, so I'll dot point the main parts:

• Says the Dees are irrelevant, as per the headline.
• We need a 'harder edge' - used Luke Beveridge's comments where he said things weren't good enough in a press conference, and they have responded, as the Bont did against GWS.  Who will stand up and do that for us?
• Says not enough players 'play for the jumper'
• That some players only came for the coin - they should want to come to Melbourne, and uses Jake Lever as an example of this (as in he came out and said he wanted to be part of something special).
• Says heads will roll, especially at board level, if this keeps up.
• Then adds the pressure should well and truly be on the club at all levels.

It's not too dissimilar to what Lyon and others have spoken about today, but it's still pretty relevant to how we're tracking right at this minute.

I’m not a fan of all this irrelevant talk , but on field we are putrid and it desperately needs to change.

Riewoldt said that “not playing for the jumper” is too simplistic and I agree. Effort is not the issue (with maybe a couple of exceptions). Skill is far and away the main issue.

8 minutes ago, P-man said:

Riewoldt said that “not playing for the jumper” is too simplistic and I agree. Effort is not the issue (with maybe a couple of exceptions). Skill is far and away the main issue.

I think you don't have to separate the two.

The classic 'playing for the jumper' means you give it everything on game day, sure, but I think it also speaks to how you spend the rest of your time. Do you study footage of your opponent? Do you work hard on your fitness? Do you work on your skills and craft as a footballer? And I don't mean go through the motions of training, but really, genuinely work (and put in the extra work) into those things.

That is where we're failing at the moment. That's why our skills haven't improved. And that's why this question of 'bleeding for the jumper' can come up despite it not being just about effort on game day.

Are these blokes just professional athletes, or are they footballers who want to win?

Edited July 6, 20204 yr by Lord Nev

Just now, Lord Nev said:

I think you don't have to separate the two.

The classic 'playing for the jumper' means you give it everything on game day, sure, but I think it also speaks to how you soend the rest of your time. Do you study footage of your opponent? Do you work hard on your fitness? Do you work on your skills and craft as a footballer? And I don't mean go through the motions of training, but really, genuinely work (and put in the extra work) into those things.

That is where we're failing at the moment. That's why our skills haven't improved. And that's why this question of 'bleeding for the jumper' can come up despite it not being just about effort on game day.

Are these blokes just professional athletes, or are they footballer who want to win?

 

Yeah fair call. When I think “playing for the jumper” I largely think effort but there are other aspects.

We don’t get full visibility on what they do off the field so there’s a bit of guesswork involved.

1 minute ago, P-man said:

Yeah fair call. When I think “playing for the jumper” I largely think effort but there are other aspects.

We don’t get full visibility on what they do off the field so there’s a bit of guesswork involved.

I've never felt like this group really 'lives it', you know? We sort of got a taste of that once we got the momentum in 2018, but that short period aside, it's all felt like good times, platitudes and the players making the sad faces at the right time.

We had a whole mini-series about how hard they were hurting, how it was burning, sitting in their guts, yet they come out a short time later and the skills have gone backwards.

It really is decision time for them all. Be remembered, or not.

4 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

I've never felt like this group really 'lives it', you know? We sort of got a taste of that once we got the momentum in 2018, but that short period aside, it's all felt like good times, platitudes and the players making the sad faces at the right time.

We had a whole mini-series about how hard they were hurting, how it was burning, sitting in their guts, yet they come out a short time later and the skills have gone backwards.

It really is decision time for them all. Be remembered, or not.

I think it was Gawn who once said something  along the lines of if the supporters are hurting, the players are hurting ten times more.

There are times I really struggle to believe that.

10 minutes ago, P-man said:

Yeah fair call. When I think “playing for the jumper” I largely think effort but there are other aspects.

We don’t get full visibility on what they do off the field so there’s a bit of guesswork involved.

I would have thought that it means being fully committed to the club,  jumper,  everything.   But that's just me I guess.

Giving it all for the club, is playing for the jumper.  Or its how I've always thought of it.

6 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

I've never felt like this group really 'lives it', you know? We sort of got a taste of that once we got the momentum in 2018, but that short period aside, it's all felt like good times, platitudes and the players making the sad faces at the right time.

We had a whole mini-series about how hard they were hurting, how it was burning, sitting in their guts, yet they come out a short time later and the skills have gone backwards.

It really is decision time for them all. Be remembered, or not.

Any other club would have scripted "To Hell and back" about a Club who had come out the other end winners. Says a lot about the Club and Board that it went to publication,

Lyon and Watson agreed this morning there wasn’t an issue with the endeavour of the players, it’s all about execution and I agree. So this not about playing for the jumper or commitment, it is about basic ability, game plan, and how we execute the game plan. Does the game plan work, does the GP suit our skill set, are we selecting the right people to play? They  are questions for the coaching hierarchy. Not sure they have any answers. 

31 minutes ago, P-man said:

Riewoldt said that “not playing for the jumper” is too simplistic and I agree. Effort is not the issue (with maybe a couple of exceptions). Skill is far and away the main issue.

I reckon it's systems, coaching, a lack of confidence, a bit of laziness and then skill via decision making (which I think has always been the MFCs problem) comes into it.

Lyon I think nailed it when he said we try to play too fast. Too much 'red mist'.

When the players picked their way through the Tige's defence in he third term they did it deliberately and they hit targets.

There's too little of that play and too much frantic hand passing back into contests. On The Couch showed a classic bit of footage in which Viney turned it over with his second handpass in a series of them, one of which was back into the pressure zone when we had a player outside able to be released.

At the least I want to see a cooler approach to the play on whenever you can style which is exciting but beyond our skill level.

 

 

Considering how much has been written and spoken about MFC today, it is clear we are far from irrelevant

35 minutes ago, P-man said:

I think it was Gawn who once said something  along the lines of if the supporters are hurting, the players are hurting ten times more.

There are times I really struggle to believe that.

i absolutely believe it is not true.

Ox is a simpleton with his football analysis on the best of days but he's an emotionally invested supporter and hurts as much as any of us. He also talks us up when we're flying more than anyone, Lyon is a bit more grounded in his thoughts. 

Schwartz tries to invoke an emotional response by speaking from the heart as a real fan. Lyon speaks like a commentator with an obvious interest in the club.

Ultimately they both have the same destination, they just take different roads to get there. 

Both are correct in this case.

One small positive - our current #5 is doing the jumper proud.

28 minutes ago, Earl Hood said:

Lyon and Watson agreed this morning there wasn’t an issue with the endeavour of the players, it’s all about execution and I agree. So this not about playing for the jumper or commitment, it is about basic ability, game plan, and how we execute the game plan. Does the game plan work, does the GP suit our skill set, are we selecting the right people to play? They  are questions for the coaching hierarchy. Not sure they have any answers. 

If you dare, cast your eyes back to 2012, Neeld's first year. We have a much better list now, but ultimately the outcome and situation was similar: a team that had plenty of endeavour but was ultimately not good enough to win on game day. Come 2013, such was that effort that the group of average AFL footballers were completely exhausted of answers: the crash was hard, fast, and quite mesmerizing such was its potency. 

I doubt any other coach would have gotten much better out of that list. We saw Roos the following year only get 4 wins out of pretty much the same group. But ultimately, it was a combination of talent and skill (or lack thereof) and poor game day coaching across 2012 and 2013.

The past 18 or so months have seen plenty of endeavour, but shocking skill, and poor selection and game day judgement. Goodwin's team is imo very close to going the way of Neeld's team. He is sticking with a structure and plan that is going to burn out the longer the season progresses. 

He is coaching stubbornly atm. Clarkson and Fagan and Simpson and Beveridge always seem to have a trick up their sleeve. They can completely alter the way their teams play. There is no distinctiv style. Richmond is blessed with a group of team players: they player perhaps the best "team" football in the league.

Atm, Goodwin is coaching a team of players that seem to hate playing with one another. There is zero synergy. This breaks trust. Creates uncertainty, second guessing. The pressure builds, and mistakes happen. But that also creates bad habits which eventually develop into bad footballers.

This is a coaching issue now. Goodwin is either going to be a Neeld or a Bomber Thompson circa 2007. I see no in between here.

15 minutes ago, praha said:

Ox is a simpleton with his football analysis on the best of days but he's an emotionally invested supporter and hurts as much as any of us. He also talks us up when we're flying more than anyone, Lyon is a bit more grounded in his thoughts. 

Schwartz tries to invoke an emotional response by speaking from the heart as a real fan. Lyon speaks like a commentator with an obvious interest in the club.

Ultimately they both have the same destination, they just take different roads to get there. 

Both are correct in this case.

Correct. The Ox is Red and Blue

So is G Lyon. You may not agree with them always but they are 100% Demons

1 hour ago, P-man said:

I think it was Gawn who once said something  along the lines of if the supporters are hurting, the players are hurting ten times more.

There are times I really struggle to believe that.

Gawn ‘hurting’ in his post game presser about the loss against the Tigers but finding it appropriate to make a joke about ‘spotless stadium’ sponsorship confusion was poor. 
That’s not captain/leadership behaviour, Max. 
Drop the rubbish approach that is supposed to align with your character and become someone who rejects anything that connects to losing. 
Really feel the hurt. 

1 hour ago, praha said:

Ox is a simpleton with his football analysis on the best of days but he's an emotionally invested supporter and hurts as much as any of us. He also talks us up when we're flying more than anyone, Lyon is a bit more grounded in his thoughts. 

Schwartz tries to invoke an emotional response by speaking from the heart as a real fan. Lyon speaks like a commentator with an obvious interest in the club.

Ultimately they both have the same destination, they just take different roads to get there. 

Both are correct in this case.

A simpleton? Played nearly 200 games of football at the highest level at centre half forward (the most difficult position on the ground) in an era full of champions! His "football analysis" deserves respect in my opinion.

It's just completely and utterly off the mark.

Full of cliches that don't even apply to our situation. Not being "hard enough" and "not playing for the jumper"? This is not an issue at all - we have plenty of hard nuts who put their body on the line week in week out for this team.

He says "players only come for the coin" - does he have evidence of this or is just another inaccurate cliched emotive call?

He also says people go to Hawthorn because they want to go there but they go to Melbourne because they have nowhere else. What absolute trash. Did Jake Lever have nowhere else? Steven May? Michael Hibberd? Why have a number of young players re-signed if the MFC is as bad as he says it is when they could easily go somewhere else.

There is no analysis whatsoever about what is really the issue at the moment which is our inside 50 efficiency through a combination of our decision making / execution forward of centre and our struggling forward line. It has nothing to do with anything Schwarz has claimed in his scorched earth policy. After reading it you'd think we had just lost to Geelong by 186 points.

I love the Ox but that article has about as much sense as the inane ramblings of a disgruntled fan 5 minutes after the game after he has had one too many. At least Lyon provided a considered opinion as to what he thinks the problems are.

Love the Ox but this is just venting without a lot of substance or consideration. Wears his heart on his sleeve though & is a great Demon.

Has anyone ever seen The Ox and Pickett Fence in the same room ?

it's a slobbo article - of course it's full of invective and passion and lack of critical analysis!

ox loves the club and keeps us under the pressure cooker in the media

1 hour ago, praha said:

If you dare, cast your eyes back to 2012, Neeld's first year. We have a much better list now, but ultimately the outcome and situation was similar: a team that had plenty of endeavour but was ultimately not good enough to win on game day. Come 2013, such was that effort that the group of average AFL footballers were completely exhausted of answers: the crash was hard, fast, and quite mesmerizing such was its potency. 

I doubt any other coach would have gotten much better out of that list. We saw Roos the following year only get 4 wins out of pretty much the same group. But ultimately, it was a combination of talent and skill (or lack thereof) and poor game day coaching across 2012 and 2013.

The past 18 or so months have seen plenty of endeavour, but shocking skill, and poor selection and game day judgement. Goodwin's team is imo very close to going the way of Neeld's team. He is sticking with a structure and plan that is going to burn out the longer the season progresses. 

He is coaching stubbornly atm. Clarkson and Fagan and Simpson and Beveridge always seem to have a trick up their sleeve. They can completely alter the way their teams play. There is no distinctiv style. Richmond is blessed with a group of team players: they player perhaps the best "team" football in the league.

Atm, Goodwin is coaching a team of players that seem to hate playing with one another. There is zero synergy. This breaks trust. Creates uncertainty, second guessing. The pressure builds, and mistakes happen. But that also creates bad habits which eventually develop into bad footballers.

This is a coaching issue now. Goodwin is either going to be a Neeld or a Bomber Thompson circa 2007. I see no in between here.

At the risk of reopening old wounds qI wholeheartedly disagree that the players in 2012-13 played with 100% effort and endeavour. They picked and chose when to go, when to make position, when to run to create an option, when to run to defend etc

I agree with your general sentiment though.

16 minutes ago, dice said:

A simpleton? Played nearly 200 games of football at the highest level at centre half forward (the most difficult position on the ground) in an era full of champions! His "football analysis" deserves respect in my opinion.

That doesn't mean he is articulate in his footy analysis though and I agree with Praha he is all about emotion and cliches, he rarely offers any real insight.

We are in need of a forward coach if Schwarta has any spare time though, just sayin.