Changes v Dees | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Changes v Dees

toothless said:
Cartoon's turn around in form pretty much means we need to win 4 of the remaining 5 to have any chance of playing finals. Yeah nah.
Click to expand...
I think that was always the case. 13-9-1 will get us in.

If we finish 12-10-1 ( lose 2 games) a lot of things were always going to have to go our way to make it.

There is a lot of emotive language going around about selection and whilst I would have preferred Cumberland in particular to have played i understand why he isn’t. Melbourne’s game is built around back half intercepts and run from that part of the ground using Salem and others. They probably believe we need a more defensive forward like Mansell. Personally I like us kicking goals which Cumberland can do.

I expect coulthard to be sub again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Tigers of Old said:
I’ll keep my powder dry for now but I thought our forward line was absolutely shocking last week & the week before despite the victories against lowly opponents. Here’s hoping the consistency of selection pays off.
Click to expand...

What's that saying about doing the same thing and expecting different results...? :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
graystar1 said:
Very surprised with that team selection.
This is the side that struggled for 3/4's against the 3rd. lowest team in the comp. to then win by only 1 point.
Hard to see us competing against one of the best teams in the league right now, with hardly any forwards of note.
Miracles do happen though, like last night, the Mudpies going down to the Blue boys.
Click to expand...

Didn't we click pretty hard in the 4th though?
 
graystar1 said:
These are the umpires for our game.
What do you know about them?
Daniel Johanson (6), Mathew Nicholls (15), Nathan Toner (25), Andre Gianfagna (27)
Click to expand...
They're a pack of *smile* cheats who *smile* hate us and will try to *smile* cost us the *smile* game.

Other than that I dont know them,
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 12 users
graystar1 said:
Yes we did. Would not expect that to happen again tomorrow though.
We need to be in the game at 3/4 time to have any chance at all.
Click to expand...

Agree mate. Just hoping to point out that it isn't all doom and gloom.
 
The choice of sub will be interesting.

Do they go with Coulthard again in the hope that lightning strikes twice?
Or do they go with Cumberland who's also shown in some games he can change the shape of a match as sub?

Given there were no changes to the starting team I'd say they wll stick with the status quo & go Coulthard again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
caesar said:
That statement is wrong @AstuteTiger Shorty and Club fully intended and planned for him to play this week.
ps Issue couldn't have occured at Captain's Run though as that was this morning
Click to expand...

Well, I see it differently, shorty was to play his 150th game tomorrow and if he was def in, we all would've heard about it via media "no such announcement was made" so this tells me he wasn't going to play. Now if he plays on Fri v Dogs then my statement is 100% correct, if he doesn't then something happened that we ain't aware of, hence why he was then pulled out. As I said, let's just wait till next Thurs teams announcement.
 
Brodders17 said:
They're a pack of *smile* cheats who *smile* hate us and will try to *smile* cost us the *smile* game.

Other than that I dont know them,
Click to expand...
Spot on Brodders.
But I’ll also add *smile* inept, no *smile* idea, *smile* imbeciles with whistles.
They can all gagf
 
AstuteTiger said:
Well, I see it differently, shorty was to play his 150th game tomorrow and if he was def in, we all would've heard about it via media "no such announcement was made" so this tells me he wasn't going to play. Now if he plays on Fri v Dogs then my statement is 100% correct, if he doesn't then something happened that we ain't aware of, hence why he was then pulled out. As I said, let's just wait till next Thurs teams announcement.
Click to expand...

What is known is known and what is unknown is unknown.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Sintiger said:
I think that was always the case. 13-9-1 will get us in.

If we finish 12-10-1 ( lose 2 games) a lot of things were always going to have to go our way to make it.

There is a lot of emotive language going around about selection and whilst I would have preferred Cumberland in particular to have played i understand why he isn’t. Melbourne’s game is built around back half intercepts and run from that part of the ground using Salem and others. They probably believe we need a more defensive forward like Mansell. Personally I like us kicking goals which Cumberland can do.

I expect coulthard to be sub again.
Click to expand...
In no universe is Mansell going to negate intercept markers. You could play him on a running defender, but he has no aerial game.

If any part of our game plan involves nullifying May or Lever, then we need to play an aerialist on them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
This game will be won in the midfield. Our midfield we will need to win at the coal face. This is Melbournes won wood. Take that away from them and we are in with a chance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Smoking Aces said:
This game will be won in the midfield. Our midfield we will need to win at the coal face. This is Melbournes won wood. Take that away from them and we are in with a chance.
Click to expand...

Agree and with Oliver out our midfield supersedes theirs. Petracca, Viney, and Bradshaw their main 3, Pickett also going in there too.

Ours, Taranto, Prestia, Hopper, Martin, Bolton, Cotchin, and Graham
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Willo said:
Spot on Brodders.
But I’ll also add *smile* inept, no *smile* idea, *smile* imbeciles with whistles.
They can all gagf
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I didn't want people to think in don't like umpires, so was careful what I said.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Brodders17 said:
Fair enough. I didn't want people to think in don't like umpires, so was careful what I said.
Click to expand...
You were.
Me? I don’t care whether people think I don’t like umpires. I don’t. They’re a blight on the game.
We’d be better off having 4 donkeys with whistles. Hang on….
 
Coburgtiger said:
In no universe is Mansell going to negate intercept markers. You could play him on a running defender, but he has no aerial game.

If any part of our game plan involves nullifying May or Lever, then we need to play an aerialist on them.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t suggesting he was. He will probably go to Salem
 
Sintiger said:
I think that was always the case. 13-9-1 will get us in.

If we finish 12-10-1 ( lose 2 games) a lot of things were always going to have to go our way to make it.

There is a lot of emotive language going around about selection and whilst I would have preferred Cumberland in particular to have played i understand why he isn’t. Melbourne’s game is built around back half intercepts and run from that part of the ground using Salem and others. They probably believe we need a more defensive forward like Mansell. Personally I like us kicking goals which Cumberland can do.

I expect coulthard to be sub again.
Click to expand...
Kicking more goals than the opposition than just defensive pressure always wins the game but the MC appear to have a different mindset.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: 1 user
It should never come down to either Coulthard or Cumbo possibly being the sub
MC should’ve have had both of them in starting 22 and Mansell or Pickett as the sub
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
You must log in or register to reply here.
< Run to the Finals | Sharing sad news re: happytige >
Official PRE merch now on Redbubble!
Top Bottom