Gibbons is important in a Lambert type of way, not pretty to watch but street smart and can kick and setup goals. Also one of the few who can use his left foot and hit a target.
Has quickly become one of my favourite players. Keeping him around the ball and not trying to turn him into a true forward has been one of the best things Teague has done.
EB, I left Pitto out of my assessment, only because, with ruckmen, I like to see a body of work over time. Having said that, he's been terrific so far.
First win down there since 1996, the year after our last premiership. Sure, there was no crowd, but the shape of that ground has given them a huge advantage over a long time. This was a great win - no bones about it. Other thoughts: Weiters and Jones are just so solid now - to have that back half spine is gold. Samo, Setters, Jack - not much from them. I believe it's there, but they're way behind my expectations in terms of consistency. Eddie - he's a little slower, he may not kick a bag, but my god he's clever and he knows when and where to go more than anyone. The little set-ups, that kick forward, then the tackle - we don't have anyone else who can do that. Martin - he won't kick 3 or 4 every game, but what a pick up. Versatile, aggressive, classy and a leader. McGovern - we probably expect too much of him. He can change a game with a couple of marks and couple of kicks. Two goals tonight - one was a ripper. He's dangerous enough to draw attention. Maybe that's enough. Walsh - a huge year for him. Seems to be finding it a bit harder at the moment, but I sense he'll get through it for the better. Edit - Daisy - we miss him. He would have been the perfect player to slow the tempo in the last. Edit - Gibbo - should never be left out of the side again. He wants it more than anyone and it shows.
Tend to agree......if there is a change I would expect Lyon to be approached, while I remain unconvinced on Bolton I remain convinced that Lyon isnt the messiah either..
Paul...You can add Brad Lloyd to that equation too....
Longmire. He's probably done as much as he can at Sydney. I'm not in favour of removing Bolton, but Horse would be the one I'd be interested in, were it to happen.
The only thing I can add, is that even in losing the taps to Witts, good rucks will sway the balance of clearances with 2nd and 3rd efforts.
I have to wonder if our rucks have simply been told not to get in Cripps way, but I'm sure Cripps would appreciate a block or two from the ruckmen every now and then!
Good point, LP. Kreuzer obviously the best option in that regard. Let's hope he gets up.
On the ruck question, I'm not sure why it's considered such an issue for this game. Witts will probably have more hitouts than anyone we put against him, but we are consistently strong on the clearance front (both in the centre and at stoppages) and I expect we'll have them covered there. Am I missing something here?
So, we'll get more clearances, but the issue is about what actually constitutes "clearing" the ball for us. Our delivery forward has been extremely poor and that's nothing to do with who is rucking. We either bomb it in, or poorly attempt to execute more precise delivery.
2 problems with this. First, whilst Harry has done extremely well, given the few clean deliveries he gets, to mark and put himself in a position to goal, we're not going to kick enough through him and we're presently light-on for other tall options who can mark and kick straight (looking at you Levi).
Second, we are not giving ourselves the opportunity to score the other way - by locking it in F50 when the ball (more often than not) simply spills. If we let the GC half-backs just run it straight back out, as we did with McVeigh, Lloyd, Mills, Jones last week, we're going to struggle.
Not too worried about our defence. I think it's looking pretty good, TBH.
Their running backs were what killed us. Every time one of McVeigh, Lloyd, Jones etc got the ball, they chewed up territory, either directly or through setting up a chain of a million possessions. Pretty much zero pressure on them from us. That was the difference, IMO. Our midfield and backs were good, as groups, but our forwards let us down defensively.
It’s telling to me that the ‘positives’ we identify are almost always about individual players - not about the way we play as a team. I suspect Sydney talk way more about the latter.
Would anyone like to have a crack at actually defining ‘game plan’? Or, if not, maybe describe Richmond’s ‘game plan’, ‘system’, ‘brand’ or the like, compared to ours tonight? What were our deficiencies, in a ‘game plan’ sense? Who can usefully describe and set out any other team’s ‘game plan’?
It’s bullcrap, people. It’s vocabulary invented by the media and tolerated by coaches, but it means nothing. There might be vague plans for particular games, match-ups, moments, but no one has an overriding plan other than kicking more than the opposition. Please, let’s drop that talk.
We couldn't run out a game last year and still can't.
Spent all our petrol catching up and slowed to a walk immediately after 3 quarter time. We got jumped early and panicked and it cost us the game.
But there were so many positives. How many teams have made Richmond mentally disintegrate like they did in that 3rd quarter?
They completely panicked and repeatedly gave away silly frees and hacked it out of defense.
We have something to build on at last.
Spot on, Jeza. I’m frankly stunned by how negative the majority of comments have been on this thread. I’ll save more detailed analysis for later, but I’ll say this now - I got out of my seat with a fist in the air way more often than I expected to tonight, and we actually worried them. 33 points was well within the acceptable range for me, against a top side, with a very different Carlton group.
What went really well today were the amount of times we were able to break down their ball movement. They had a lot of possessions which went sideways and back which was obviously a result of our midfield defensive slide across the ground to cut off easy options. When they picked a way through the midfield our defense were pretty good at intercepting them. We won't face too many midfields more capable of cutting up an opponent through the midfield than collingwood.
What dropped off from last week was the damage from the small forwards. Gibbons, Ed and Polson weren't able to have the impact crumbing they did against the bombres.
Cunningham was very good again but down on last week.
One comment: There seemed to be a breeze blowing to the end that we kicked to in the last quarter. It was the scoring end - but the commentators never seemed to pick up on it.
Spot on. This aspect was a huge improvement on anything I saw last year.
The reason is to spread the load, and be less predictable. We don't need Cripps bashed into submission over the next 3 years
It is the same reason that as good as Tony Lockett was, he never played in a premiership. Nor did Garry Ablett. The Hawks lost Buddy but to everyone's amazement probably improved their total forward line because they were less predictable.
I am not suggesting he doesn't play there at all, just more time out of the middle so others grown and flourish.
Fair call, JH. Apologies - misunderstood your suggestion.
