titan_uranus

Utterly ridiculous thread. We are in no position to be claiming any wins. After Monday, I expect Demonland to return to its regular tone.

I posted this in the Good, Bad and Ugly thread: The Ugly: this from the MRP today on Jetta: "The panel said that while Jetta's actions were exaggerated, it was their view they were not excessive in nature and he did not feign illegal contact." Watch this and tell me how this is not 'excessive in nature': [media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJKswfpvLt0

'Undeniably won a game'? Really? He sure helped, no doubt, but I think there were plenty of Brisbane players who played out of their skins in the last quarter. Green wasn't the only one. They kicked 8 goals. Would it not be fair to say that, since he kicked the last goal, Polkinghorne 'undeniably won' them the game? I'm being a bit facetious here, but I fundamentally disagree with your argument that, since Green kicked three of eight goals, he won Brisbane the game. He didn't. He played a role. Just like McDonald did. McDonald stood up in the last quarter (like many MFC players did), and though he didn't kick three goals and thus grab the attention, he still stood up.

Let's be fair here. Green had four disposals. Three were goals, sure, but he touched the ball four times, and only featured for about 25 minutes. Tom McDonald played 100% of the game (btw, I like this about Neeld. He'll keep players on the ground for the entire game if need be) and dominated his opponent(s). Green was good. McDonald was better.

I feel as though the goal umpires have been told to be more assertive with their decisions. The goal umpire obviously was convinced Hardingham had touched it before it crossed the line. From the replays I have seen, I can't see how he could have been so sure. I'm confident the ball had crossed the line. Having said that, since the replay wasn't conclusive, they were going to come back with the same decision anyway, so referring it wouldn't have changed anything. But as has been noted, I'm fairly sure they're trying hard to not use the review system unless there is serious doubt. It's just annoying when field or boundary umpires get involved in certain decisions where there isn't much doubt and they waste time reviewing, then when there is a case of doubt like this one, the fact that the field/boundary umpires didn't have any doubt means the decision isn't reviewed. The system is too subjective. Get rid of reviews altogether, I say.

Agree wholeheartedly. Grimes to the middle should be a permanent thing. Watts, Nicholson and Blease can play sweepers across HB. Also Bail and Strauss. Grimes' work at the stoppages was great, too great to ignore.

The Ugly: this from the MRP today on Jetta: "The panel said that while Jetta's actions were exaggerated, it was their view they were not excessive in nature and he did not feign illegal contact." Watch this and tell me how this is not 'excessive in nature': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJKswfpvLt0

They won't bring back any of their injured players. They'll wait till after the bye and attack the second half of the year. As a result, they'll have a sub-standard team in. As a result, they only deserve to be favourites by a margin of about 50 points, instead of 75. I know we just won, but Collingwood is the premiership favourite, and deservedly so, and they are not weak as the proverbial in the wet, so even if it rains, they aren't going to wilt like Essendon did. If we play our best, and we attack the ball, spread, run, and all that, it could easily be a contest, maybe for a half, maybe for three quarters. Obviously after this round anyone can win, but we really have as little a chance as can be.

We won, and the players worked hard for it. Let them unify as a team and give another top-4 side a crack. Something I've loved about Richmond this year is the fact they've only used 27 players. Sure, part of that is because they're going great on the injury front, but part of that is a realisation that they need to have a core team and they have to play together. I want to see our team become a team. Switching players week in, week out, simply for match-up reasons, disrupts that. There's simply no need, after this win, to make any changes that aren't necessitated. Leave the axeings for losses.

I think I literally fist-pumped when Garland took that mark at the end. Aside from that, Sellar's mark as they went forward after Garland's point was another moment where I may have fist pumped. And Magner's kick into the 50.

I love the kid. He isn't afraid to run, he breaks the lines, he is smart with where he runs to in spreading from stoppages, he is strong/courageous to boot (I reckon he blocked the holes in front of Hurley, Ryder and Crameri about four times last night), throws himself into stoppages when needed. Of course, like many of our defenders, his kicking is a really weak point, but I thought it was worse last year than what I've seen this year, and I think he's improved his run and carry game and his strength. Definitely worth persisting with. I think the run we are getting from Nicholson, Blease, Jones and Grimes, and to a lesser extent, Morton and Bail, is important to our team.

Criticisms of his ability to coach and his decisions are one thing. Saying it was the wrong decision to ever hire him is another. Hardwick provides the perfect example. Two years ago Richmond was 0-9. Now, Hardwick has moulded them into a team that is pushing for the finals. The point being that 0-9 does not equal 'bad decision to hire the coach'.

Can't agree with this. He was a lot better than the first 9 weeks. Made some mistakes still, sure, but he was far more urgent, speedy and present than he has been. 'Abysmal' is not even close to describing his game.

Rubbish call from David King. He should apologise. Any other journalist who wrote off our year should also make some sort of correction. That includes Mike Sheahan and Mark Stevens. Anyone was entitled to say we were terrible (we still are 1-9, 16th, and not that good really). But when you say things like 'Neeld was the wrong choice' and 'they won't win a game for the year', you deserve to cop a bit back.

Only potential in is Frawley. Bail is stiff, but we ought to reward the players who won us the game last night. I don't think Frawley for Blease, if Blease is injured, is a good swap, so we'd have to make a second change for that. In: Frawley, Bail (only if Blease is injured) Out: Dunn, Blease (only if injured) I know Dunn had 7 tackles in his half. But everyone was tackling last night; it was the style of game. I also don't think there is any future in Dunn at all. He isn't really playing any specific role either. Green wasn't great last night but if I had to pick which one I think could actually influence a game, I'd pick Green, and on that basis, Dunn makes way. MacDonald was good last night, aggressive and courageous. He stays. Sellar cannot be dropped on the back of that performance. Morton might be on the cusp, but I'd drop Dunn first; Morton's run is useful.

Good thread. Sellar was fantastic last night, especially early. Surprised me with skill I didn't think he had. Terrible as a forward, worse as a ruck, but his game last night suggests maybe defence is his go. A really good game.

The Ugly - the Essendon [censored] sitting in the row in front of me in the members getting stuck in to Trengove. Called him a pathetic player and a useless captain. When I called him out on it he proceeded to explain how it was Trengove's fault we were 0-9 and that a decent captain doesn't let his side get to that many losses. I wanted to knock his face in. I had unbridled joy in screaming out at Lovett-Murray's weak attempted strike early in the game, Dempsey's repeated soft efforts and turnovers, and Crameri's inability to both stay on his feet and get a kick, to which he had nothing except the standard 'we're 8-1, you're 0-9, so shove it'. Worst part of the night was definitely the fact that he disappeared at three quarter time and wasn't around for me to point to the scoreboard after the game.

A somewhat ridiculous thread. Yes, last night Watts was great and Hurley was poor, and yes, in the clinches, Hurley mucked up about 5 times (to my great delight, mind you) and Watts simultaneously stood up. His ball-handling of a wet, slippery ball was outstanding. For the record, I believe Watts will be the better player overall, and right now, I don't think there's too much between them. But Hurley, presently, is better. One match doesn't change that. Hurley has a booming kick, off both sides, and a strong pair of hands. We didn't see it last night, sure, but before Franklin's 13 yesterday he was ineffectual for about a month. Players go up and down. Anyway, I loved Watts' game last night. He can play HB and free up Grimes to play in the midfield, which I love seeing.

This is hard. 6 - Grimes (thought his clearance work was freaking unbelievable. Why has he not been in the midfield before this week? Amazing. His best MFC game I would say) 5 - Garland 4 - Jones 3 - Nicholson 2 - Watts 1 - Sellar (WTF. Where did that game come from? Did not think he had that kind of ability in him. Wasted as a forward/ruck, but as a defender he shined last night. He added some skill to his ever-present enthusiasm, and he turned in probably his best game ever. Pleasantly surprised).

Not a fan of playing Clark in the ruck. With Sellar coming in for Frawley I don't think we'll have to do that. One thing I want Neeld to maintain doing is playing players in positions he wants them to be in in the long run. So that means Clark plays FF, Watts plays HB/wing (if that's what Neeld wants), Garland stays in defence, Bail does his HFF/run with role, etc. I don't like moving players around as stop-gap solutions. We don't need Clark to ruck. In the long run we have Gawn, and I still have faith in Martin. Clark is dominating at FF; if he was in any other team that's not called Gold Coast/GWS, he could be leading the Coleman.

Good work rpfc. I tried starting a similar thread a year or two ago but to no avail. Lots of deadwood available to be chopped at the end of the year. Bate, Dunn, Petterd, MacDonald, Spencer, Fitzpatrick, and potentially Jamar, Green and Moloney too.

I'm sure it will pop up over the pre-season. On Demonland, any topic is a relevant topic during October-February.

I think in the majority of cases it was Bailey's plan. He removed the defensive instincts from a lot of our players in getting them to run and carry. I think he implemented that style in attempting to model us on Geelong. Having said that, I think there are certain players on our list who might not really excel at defensive play. I don't think Morton, for example, is very intuitively defensive. I think his best football is as an offensive runner, in space, pushing up the ground, and no matter who his coach is, defensive running and blocking and all that are not things he is good at. Nice post mate. Agree on all counts.

Haven't voiced my opinion on this board, and potentially no one cares anyway, but FWIW I don't like it. Maybe it's just because this separation is new, but I always forget to check here for player threads, and I still go to the main board and wonder why there aren't threads there. I never seem to have that problem at draft time when we do the separate drafting board. Anyway. Totally inconsequential really. Keep up the hard work mods!

Possibly the worst kick at the club, which is something of a (dis)honour given there is sincere competition for that title. The rest of his game, though, I love. He seems a natural defender, like Rivers. He can read the play nicely, he holds his own even when giving up weight and/or height, he's courageous, and he also has an attacking bone in his body. I love seeing him peel off his forward and push up the wing. Of course, he can get burnt on the turnover, but I like that he has that attack to him. Hopefully the kicking will improve. Even if not, he's still a great young prospect.