6 minutes ago, bush demon said:

He may have once had an anti-Melbourne vibe but was very respectful of his old club when we brought home the vegan bacon in 2021.

yes Jumped on the piggy back to be associated with winners in 2021

He still cans the Dees has never really believed in my opinion

22 minutes ago, bush demon said:

He may have once had an anti-Melbourne vibe but was very respectful of his old club when we brought home the vegan bacon in 2021.

Nicely done with the vegan bacon!

2 hours ago, Kent said:

Healy hates melbourne Can barely listen to him Clearly push in the back for his only score

He hates the Dees. Must have been the vitriol directed towards him when he chased the money in Sydney.  He deserved every bit. We were becoming a good combination and then he defected . Stuff I’m or words to that effect 

Now onto to current football

i did not watch could not watch

how well did Woewodin go

obviously the sub, 

5 touches 2 marks 1 tackle. 
 

better than Laurie.    Different positions I suppose.    Will he make it ?

 

opinions please

30 minutes ago, 640MD said:

better than Laurie.    Different positions I suppose.    Will he make it ?

yes, yes, and yes

he's one of those classique 'solid' players who looks like he's not have any trouble being a contributor at afl level - not a star, but the equivalent of a harmes, sparrow, jj etc. who can play a role through midfield and covering forward / back as required

I hope so,

We as a club did not give enough cheers to his father in his dad's last couple of years of football.

We made a serious mistake I think,  amongst many I give you,  but I think some egos got in the way some how and not enough common sense, probably from a few people.  He should never had ended up at the filth.

2023 looks very promising,  enjoy the year.  Go Dees

45 minutes ago, 640MD said:

Now onto to current football

i did not watch could not watch

how well did Woewodin go

obviously the sub, 

5 touches 2 marks 1 tackle. 
 

better than Laurie.    Different positions I suppose.    Will he make it ?

 

opinions please

Reminds me of his dad the most when he's running and carrying. Was nice to see that sight again.

1 hour ago, old55 said:

Just sayin' ...

Hitouts: Richmond 37 Melbourne 24

Nankervis 24, Soldo 13, Gawn 12, Grundy 11, TMac 1.

Clearances: Richmond 33 Melbourne 32

Centre Clearances: Richmond 18 Melbourne 11

Stoppage Clearances: Richmond 15 Melbourne 21

 

A lot of the Richmond hitouts would have been against Tom McDonald. He took most (or even all) the forward 50 contests and as you can see, only won one of them. As I posted previously, this may not be a concern given it meant that it would have allowed us the luxury of having one or both of Gawn and Grundy behind the ball. 

49 minutes ago, 640MD said:

Now onto to current football

i did not watch could not watch

how well did Woewodin go

obviously the sub, 

5 touches 2 marks 1 tackle. 
 

better than Laurie.    Different positions I suppose.    Will he make it ?

 

opinions please

Taj only played the last quarter but looked liked he belonged.  After playing most of 2022 at Casey across half back, he played out of the middle when he came on in the 5th period against the Saints last weekend and was one of our best.  Was played out of the middle again in the Q4 against Richmond.  He has developed really fast, and if he continues on this trajectory looks like he could contribute at AFL level if required by mid-year.  

Laurie had one great moment when he cleverly tapped the ball on to a team mate which set up a fast chain, but on the whole looked some way off.  A clumsy tackle that gave away a free early on was a real poor moment for him.

23 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

A lot of the Richmond hitouts would have been against Tom McDonald. He took most (or even all) the forward 50 contests and as you can see, only won one of them. As I posted previously, this may not be a concern given it meant that it would have allowed us the luxury of having one or both of Gawn and Grundy behind the ball. 

Given that, it makes the fact we won the stoppage clearances by 6 even more impressive.

Winning around the ground stoppages are key for us because they allow us to control territory, which of course so do center clearances.

However, unlike at centre bounces, we often have one less player at stoppages because some other teams (eg blues and swans - but not the tigers) bring an extra to the stoppages.

When we are confident of winning stoppage clearances, we can afford to risk having players like Hunter take up up aggressive positions, for example forward of the contest, which creates good scoring opportunities when we win the clearance.

And when we don't win the clearance, our spare is back, and we often win back the ball.

As we saw against the tigers, this scenario can also become an offensive threat when we transition forward - particularly if we are as aggressive and sharp with our kicking as we were against the tigers (i thought i was in alternate reality when the stat came up late in the first q that our DE was 80%. Theirs was actually pretty good too - 72%)

The stat i'd really like to see from this game is scores from clearances because it gives a better sense of the effectiveness of clearances than the raw clearance number.

The other key clearance related stat is post clearance contested ball wins.

Hardwick has said it is the most important stat for them, and Goody has also noted its importance to our game plan. I suspect we smashed them on that stat in this game. 

Edited March 6, 20232 yr by binman

2 hours ago, old55 said:

Just sayin' ...

Hitouts: Richmond 37 Melbourne 24

Nankervis 24, Soldo 13, Gawn 12, Grundy 11, TMac 1.

Clearances: Richmond 33 Melbourne 32

Centre Clearances: Richmond 18 Melbourne 11

Stoppage Clearances: Richmond 15 Melbourne 21

 

 

These are the Hit Outs to Advantage numbers which confirms my impressions of the ruck battle.  The stats people may have given lots of ineffectual taps to Richmond, but we were 13-8 when it came to clean hitouts which led to many clean and deep clearances, Sparrow in particular was able to sink his sizeable legs into some which ended up 30m out from our goal. 

19 hours ago, Deestar9 said:

You’re correct…Chandler should have got a Free for push in back & kicked a goal but the goal umpire erred as it did hit the post & he paid a goal. Max didn’t kick the goal 

I think the goal umpire was signalling a behind, but the field umpire came in and overruled… as the commentators were saying, it would have ended up a goal anyway due to the free kick. But I think it was just the field umpire making a mistake 

chandler got a free for in the back, advantage paid to max who had kicked it thru for a goal (off-vision, apparently)

3 hours ago, 640MD said:

He hates the Dees. Must have been the vitriol directed towards him when he chased the money in Sydney.  He deserved every bit. We were becoming a good combination and then he defected . Stuff I’m or words to that effect 

REally? i dont get that vibe at all. I thought he was overly positive for the Dees. 

2 hours ago, Vipercrunch said:

 

These are the Hit Outs to Advantage numbers which confirms my impressions of the ruck battle.  The stats people may have given lots of ineffectual taps to Richmond, but we were 13-8 when it came to clean hitouts which led to many clean and deep clearances, Sparrow in particular was able to sink his sizeable legs into some which ended up 30m out from our goal. 

Yes good info thanks.

Richmond were forced to play 2 rucks which they would prefer not to do so we get an advantage everywhere else on the field.

It's also not all about ruck contests - marking around the ground and goals are just as important.

FWIW I am a fan of Gawn and Grundy together.

5 minutes ago, old55 said:

Yes good info thanks.

Richmond were forced to play 2 rucks which they would prefer not to do so we get an advantage everywhere else on the field.

It's also not all about ruck contests - marking around the ground and goals are just as important.

FWIW I am a fan of Gawn and Grundy together.

That's right and one of the bare minimums we'll be hoping for is opposition has to plan accordingly for it. Richmond never usually go into a game that tall.

It's going to be about making ourselves harder to play against rather than how to combat other teams. 

18 hours ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

....... I was sporting a shiner and bruised knees, she was in a moonboot and her arm was in a sling. ...

I can imagine how you got the bruised knees, but the moonboot and sling have me thinking you are doing it incorrectly.

57 minutes ago, Gawndy the Great said:

REally? i dont get that vibe at all. I thought he was overly positive for the Dees. 

I've been listening to Gerard Healy every night on the way home from work since 2012 and can absolutely confirm that he has been extremely positive about the Dees for many years and had identified our potential as a genuine premiership contender since the late Roos/early Goodwin days.

He definitely does not come across as a bitter former Melbourne player, and his close friendship with Nathan Jones has probably had the opposite effect, in that he was quietly hoping we'd eventually taste the ultimate success.

6 hours ago, old55 said:

Just sayin' ...

Hitouts: Richmond 37 Melbourne 24

Nankervis 24, Soldo 13, Gawn 12, Grundy 11, TMac 1.

Clearances: Richmond 33 Melbourne 32

Centre Clearances: Richmond 18 Melbourne 11

Stoppage Clearances: Richmond 15 Melbourne 21

 

Err goals

Grundy 3 Gawn 3

Soldo 0 Nankervis 0

 

Just sayin

As Grundy was kicking his goal at the end of the first one of the commentators said that Grundy had “poured bit of a bucket on Craig McRae and Collingwood”. Does anyone know what he said? 

23 hours ago, Willmoy1947 said:

Insider Tigers told me they want Oliver, Petracca or Sparrow.

They also said they would sell us the Punt Rd Oval for any two of them.

I keep thinking about this post.

 

I’m amazed that they put Sparrow in there. I have thought for some time that he might develop into something like Petracca, but I would then think that I was being fanciful…

3 hours ago, whatwhat say what said:

chandler got a free for in the back, advantage paid to max who had kicked it thru for a goal (off-vision, apparently)

That can't be correct because the ball had dribbled over the line before Max got there, it was a stuff up of a decision. Would've been a goal anyway.

41 minutes ago, Ollie fan said:

I keep thinking about this post.

 

I’m amazed that they put Sparrow in there. I have thought for some time that he might develop into something like Petracca, but I would then think that I was being fanciful…

Pretty sure @Willmoy1947's comments were tongue in cheek

21 minutes ago, loges said:

That can't be correct because the ball had dribbled over the line before Max got there, it was a stuff up of a decision. Would've been a goal anyway.

I assume the controlling umpire totally missed the part where the ball hit the post and then go over the line and only saw Max kick it through, and thought calling it as an advantage was the way to go.  And as you say, same result in the end.

6 hours ago, 640MD said:

Now onto to current football

i did not watch could not watch

how well did Woewodin go

obviously the sub, 

5 touches 2 marks 1 tackle. 
 

better than Laurie.    Different positions I suppose.    Will he make it ?

 

opinions please

It’s a bit unfair to compare as Taj came on fresh at 3/4 time to a fairly open game with  most senior players pretty well in to junk time ready for round 1. He ran hard to get to get touches, had one risky corridor kick in to Petracca that was turned over but otherwise seemed to use it safely. Moved from half forward on to the ball late 

Laurie wasn’t involved much but his time on ground seemed to come mostly in the first half that was a tighter more contested game. I thought he worked hard to defend and seal off his opponent, but his lack of speed to lay tackles or break in to open space did seem noticeable. I was really happy he managed to have a great moment with the clever tap on.