by am Bays » Tue Oct 03, 2017 3:09 pm
by Lightning McQueen » Tue Oct 03, 2017 3:11 pm
by amber_fluid » Tue Oct 03, 2017 3:13 pm
Dutchy wrote:
by Magellan » Tue Oct 03, 2017 3:15 pm
OnSong wrote:Booney wrote:OnSong wrote:am Bays wrote:"Sides" don't win premeirships, "Teams" do
Lol. It's a synonym.
On hot doughnuts it's the bomb. Had some from the kiosk in Port Vincent after the footy on Saturday while I was squiding with some Paleys.
Mmm Mmmm
I either don't get this joke or it's in the wrong thread
by Booney » Tue Oct 03, 2017 3:15 pm
Lightning McQueen wrote:Who won the sprint?
by cracka » Tue Oct 03, 2017 3:36 pm
Booney wrote:I'd be potting the coaching staff. They were happy to let Jacobs go up on his lonesome and win tap after tap only to be hitting down to a midfield outnumbered by at least 1 and sometimes 2 Richmond mids, often one on the defensive side of the contest who was there as a backstop if Adelaide won the ball or to break forward when Richmond did. That was structural > coaches.
For the players they took the easy down the line option too often and weren't prepared to take the risk to centre the ball or play on. All of this though was forced by Richmond's pressure on the ball carrier when in play and then choking space up the field when Adelaide players were kicking over the mark.
by mots02 » Tue Oct 03, 2017 3:41 pm
cracka wrote:Booney wrote:I'd be potting the coaching staff. They were happy to let Jacobs go up on his lonesome and win tap after tap only to be hitting down to a midfield outnumbered by at least 1 and sometimes 2 Richmond mids, often one on the defensive side of the contest who was there as a backstop if Adelaide won the ball or to break forward when Richmond did. That was structural > coaches.
For the players they took the easy down the line option too often and weren't prepared to take the risk to centre the ball or play on. All of this though was forced by Richmond's pressure on the ball carrier when in play and then choking space up the field when Adelaide players were kicking over the mark.
Agree we were outcoached. I wonder if Hardwicks tactic will change the way rucks are looked at. Would like to know how many times Richmond didn't have a ruckman compete at boundary throw ins but had the extra just read Jacobs taps. Then having Grigg compete at centre bounces, again they lost the tap but won the clearance. Ruckman may get smaller & be more mobile.
by cracka » Tue Oct 03, 2017 3:44 pm
mots02 wrote:cracka wrote:Booney wrote:I'd be potting the coaching staff. They were happy to let Jacobs go up on his lonesome and win tap after tap only to be hitting down to a midfield outnumbered by at least 1 and sometimes 2 Richmond mids, often one on the defensive side of the contest who was there as a backstop if Adelaide won the ball or to break forward when Richmond did. That was structural > coaches.
For the players they took the easy down the line option too often and weren't prepared to take the risk to centre the ball or play on. All of this though was forced by Richmond's pressure on the ball carrier when in play and then choking space up the field when Adelaide players were kicking over the mark.
Agree we were outcoached. I wonder if Hardwicks tactic will change the way rucks are looked at. Would like to know how many times Richmond didn't have a ruckman compete at boundary throw ins but had the extra just read Jacobs taps. Then having Grigg compete at centre bounces, again they lost the tap but won the clearance. Ruckman may get smaller & be more mobile.
This is where the rule that the ruckman cant grab it out of the air is flawed. If one team doesn't put up anyone to compete, the remaining ruck should be able to grab it out of the air rather than be forced to knock it away, usually to an area that is filled by oppo players, including the ruckman who didnt compete
by Footy Smart » Tue Oct 03, 2017 3:45 pm
For me, glass half full. It's only football.
We lost a football match, last week some parents lost their daughter at her own hands because of the impact of on line bullying. Perspective in times like this.
by mots02 » Tue Oct 03, 2017 3:46 pm
cracka wrote:mots02 wrote:cracka wrote:Booney wrote:I'd be potting the coaching staff. They were happy to let Jacobs go up on his lonesome and win tap after tap only to be hitting down to a midfield outnumbered by at least 1 and sometimes 2 Richmond mids, often one on the defensive side of the contest who was there as a backstop if Adelaide won the ball or to break forward when Richmond did. That was structural > coaches.
For the players they took the easy down the line option too often and weren't prepared to take the risk to centre the ball or play on. All of this though was forced by Richmond's pressure on the ball carrier when in play and then choking space up the field when Adelaide players were kicking over the mark.
Agree we were outcoached. I wonder if Hardwicks tactic will change the way rucks are looked at. Would like to know how many times Richmond didn't have a ruckman compete at boundary throw ins but had the extra just read Jacobs taps. Then having Grigg compete at centre bounces, again they lost the tap but won the clearance. Ruckman may get smaller & be more mobile.
This is where the rule that the ruckman cant grab it out of the air is flawed. If one team doesn't put up anyone to compete, the remaining ruck should be able to grab it out of the air rather than be forced to knock it away, usually to an area that is filled by oppo players, including the ruckman who didnt compete
Thats just smart tactics from Richmond though. Using the rules to there advantage. There was a Richmond player following Jacobs to the tap of every uncontested throw in just in case he did grab it. Outcoached.
by Q. » Tue Oct 03, 2017 5:26 pm
Hardwick's ruck tactic wasn't new... Geelong been doing similar for years and it won Scott that premiership.cracka wrote:Booney wrote:I'd be potting the coaching staff. They were happy to let Jacobs go up on his lonesome and win tap after tap only to be hitting down to a midfield outnumbered by at least 1 and sometimes 2 Richmond mids, often one on the defensive side of the contest who was there as a backstop if Adelaide won the ball or to break forward when Richmond did. That was structural > coaches.
For the players they took the easy down the line option too often and weren't prepared to take the risk to centre the ball or play on. All of this though was forced by Richmond's pressure on the ball carrier when in play and then choking space up the field when Adelaide players were kicking over the mark.
Agree we were outcoached. I wonder if Hardwicks tactic will change the way rucks are looked at. Would like to know how many times Richmond didn't have a ruckman compete at boundary throw ins but had the extra just read Jacobs taps. Then having Grigg compete at centre bounces, again they lost the tap but won the clearance. Ruckman may get smaller & be more mobile.
by cracka » Tue Oct 03, 2017 5:36 pm
Q. wrote:Hardwick's ruck tactic wasn't new... Geelong been doing similar for years and it won Scott that premiership.cracka wrote:Booney wrote:I'd be potting the coaching staff. They were happy to let Jacobs go up on his lonesome and win tap after tap only to be hitting down to a midfield outnumbered by at least 1 and sometimes 2 Richmond mids, often one on the defensive side of the contest who was there as a backstop if Adelaide won the ball or to break forward when Richmond did. That was structural > coaches.
For the players they took the easy down the line option too often and weren't prepared to take the risk to centre the ball or play on. All of this though was forced by Richmond's pressure on the ball carrier when in play and then choking space up the field when Adelaide players were kicking over the mark.
Agree we were outcoached. I wonder if Hardwicks tactic will change the way rucks are looked at. Would like to know how many times Richmond didn't have a ruckman compete at boundary throw ins but had the extra just read Jacobs taps. Then having Grigg compete at centre bounces, again they lost the tap but won the clearance. Ruckman may get smaller & be more mobile.
by whufc » Tue Oct 03, 2017 5:55 pm
by Corona Man » Tue Oct 03, 2017 5:58 pm
whufc wrote:Didn't Centrals use that 'no ruckmen' tactic in the 2004 GF or something
by cracka » Tue Oct 03, 2017 6:03 pm
cracka wrote:Q. wrote:Hardwick's ruck tactic wasn't new... Geelong been doing similar for years and it won Scott that premiership.cracka wrote:Booney wrote:I'd be potting the coaching staff. They were happy to let Jacobs go up on his lonesome and win tap after tap only to be hitting down to a midfield outnumbered by at least 1 and sometimes 2 Richmond mids, often one on the defensive side of the contest who was there as a backstop if Adelaide won the ball or to break forward when Richmond did. That was structural > coaches.
For the players they took the easy down the line option too often and weren't prepared to take the risk to centre the ball or play on. All of this though was forced by Richmond's pressure on the ball carrier when in play and then choking space up the field when Adelaide players were kicking over the mark.
Agree we were outcoached. I wonder if Hardwicks tactic will change the way rucks are looked at. Would like to know how many times Richmond didn't have a ruckman compete at boundary throw ins but had the extra just read Jacobs taps. Then having Grigg compete at centre bounces, again they lost the tap but won the clearance. Ruckman may get smaller & be more mobile.
Not having anyone compete at boundary throw ins was new.
by gadj1976 » Tue Oct 03, 2017 8:30 pm
by LMA » Tue Oct 03, 2017 8:53 pm
gadj1976 wrote:just goes to show, ruckman are becoming obsolete due to the ridiculous rules in place.
by Dogwatcher » Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:19 pm
OnSong wrote:am Bays wrote:OnSong wrote:am Bays wrote:
"Sides" don't win premeirships, "Teams" do
Lol. It's a synonym.
Mate in footy/performance terms, there is a massive difference between a "team" and a "side"
I'm going to have one win this weekend and it's going to be this one. Look it up in a ******* Thesaurus. They're the same ******* thing.
by tigerpie » Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:32 pm
by LMA » Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:43 pm
Dogwatcher wrote:am Bays wrote:OnSong wrote:am Bays wrote:
"Sides" don't win premeirships, "Teams" do
Lol. It's a synonym.
Mate in footy/performance terms, there is a massive difference between a "team" and a "side"
I think I've got the last word on this:
There is no 'I' in 'team', but there is in 'side'.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |