Game Day - Richmond v North Melbourne, Elimination Final 2015

[22nd Man]

First time I have seen my old man since the game. As soon as I step in the door he says "they have to get rid of the boys and get some men". Explained how he thought we were just pushed off the ball and physiques were inferior. Except Jack the only tough one we have.

He normally takes our losses on the chin but Time is not on his side at 92.

 

[Chimptastic]

Slowly getting over the loss. Still believe the main reason we lost was a choke, but more complex. Indulge me part of the healing process, not completely accurate of course, and the various factors are interrelated, and hindsight is easy, but FWIW, we lost because:

10% selection of Griff, dumb. The only players you rush back for a final are proven lynchpins, players who are integral to the side and have proven they can play injured or rusty. Griff is so far from this. Thought it when he was selected and thats how it played out.

20% Cotch and Lids injured. I know some may disagree, and thats totally fair enough. But I reckon they were. In hindsight we should have rested them round 23, but hindsight is easy.

10% Not having one more crash and bash, hard mid. Again this illustrates the complexities and interrelatedness, if Cotch had played well, this wouldn't have been a factor. In hindsight, Thomas might have gone well.

10% North's hardness, Ziebell and Cunnington etc, they suit finals, but again, some of our players who should suit finals didn't fire for whatever reason.

20% Dimmas coaching, stick Griff on Waite, go man on man, try a few things for half a quarter. He's rightly copped criticism on here, I personally think he deserves another year given the whole context, but he takes a big part of the rap.

30% Mental baggage, or choking. It's not that we're soft, although we are a little, more that we play like we're scared to lose. We have a heap of baggage, and there is good reason for it. A massive army of passionate supporters, 30 years of complete incompetence, the players and coaches feel it just like us fans do. Its like the Colliwobbles, they are another huge club like us who was starved of success during that period, its just something we have to overcome, and I believe we will, (I really thought we would last week...) Also part of this is that North have zero baggage, nobody except a handful of supporters really care whether they win or lose. They just go out and play, they use it as a strength, as they should. It might sound like sour grapes and I can understand that.

I believe we will overcome the 'Tigerwobbles', even though we haven't won a final we have been progressively overcoming them. We used to never win big games, and often lose to sides we should beat, and get flogged regularly when we did lose. We've overcome all of those that are essential steps.

In spite of all this, we only just lost. I believe we're a better side than North. I remember we beat St K in the early zeros and Grant Thomas said they were a better side than us, he copped a heap. He was right.

anyway, I feel better

Nice post.

It makes me wonder if we'll almost 'need' to lose a Grand Final or two before we'll be capable of winning one. We're that sought of team at this point in time.

 

[HR]

PRE people. We are not better than North yet. We are trying to be but until we beat them in the manner that they beat us we don't deserve to go to the second week of finals let alone think we are worthy of the 3rd or 4th weeks. We are on a track that is planned and methodical, it may get us there it may not but its sure better than where we have been in a long time. There are so many variables in our great game and I am confident the worm will turn and then all this will be worth it.

 

[snags]

PRE people. We are not better than North yet. We are trying to be but until we beat them in the manner that they beat us we don't deserve to go to the second week of finals let alone think we are worthy of the 3rd or 4th weeks. We are on a track that is planned and methodical, it may get us there it may not but its sure better than where we have been in a long time. There are so many variables in our great game and I am confident the worm will turn and then all this will be worth it.

I believe we have the more talented side. However talent only goes so far. We were shown up as they played a locked down game style that works against our less imposing brigade. To beat them at their own game we need bigger bodies. Or more easily, a robust game plan that exposes their deficiencies. Longmire had the right idea Saturday night he switched things around and exposed Jacobs in areas he was uncomfortable. Our next big step forward may not come from on field improvement. We have to be more dynamic in the coach's box. Someone on here suggested getting an RFC coaching panel together to rip apart the game in order to identify our weaknesses and therefore develop counter measures. I reckon that's not a bad idea. We're not too far away however the amplification of finals makes it look and feel a lot worse than it is.

Apologies if I'm totally wrong as I haven't had the strength to watch the replay. My opinion above was gleaned through the fuzzy lens of a half filled plastic beer receptacle.

 

[RoarEmotion]

Watched it again. We still lost. WasStill p&&used at the non holding the ball and the two gifts goals we gave them courtesy of conca and Chaplin. The conca one was actually worse because we were a good chance of scoring ourselves.

OK now I think I can move on.

I think.

 

[tiges]

Watched it again. We still lost. WasStill p&&used at the non holding the ball and the two gifts goals we gave them courtesy of conca and Chaplin. The conca one was actually worse because we were a good chance of scoring ourselves.

OK now I think I can move on.

I think.

I couldn't possibly watch it again, will be even worse if North win the flag, i reckon i will go into stage 2 losing the plot if that happens.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

I believe we have the more talented side. However talent only goes so far. We were shown up as they played a locked down game style that works against our less imposing brigade. To beat them at their own game we need bigger bodies. Or more easily, a robust game plan that exposes their deficiencies. Longmire had the right idea Saturday night he switched things around and exposed Jacobs in areas he was uncomfortable. Our next big step forward may not come from on field improvement. We have to be more dynamic in the coach's box. Someone on here suggested getting an RFC coaching panel together to rip apart the game in order to identify our weaknesses and therefore develop counter measures. I reckon that's not a bad idea. We're not too far away however the amplification of finals makes it look and feel a lot worse than it is.

Apologies if I'm totally wrong as I haven't had the strength to watch the replay. My opinion above was gleaned through the fuzzy lens of a half filled plastic beer receptacle.

Sounds about right smeat. I would add that we need a couple of our bigger units to be more "dynamic" also. Either through development or recruiting. Cotch tried to add a bit of grit to his game this year but he is too small to have that impact much. Dare I say we miss Jacko? Not sure Vlas has it in him but but I'd love him to step up in this area. K-mac seems to be trending this way. The bloke I'd truely love to do it will probably never get there and that's Griff. TV can do it, but will he ever be consistent? We showed "arrogance" in a few games this year but we were midgets against Norf in the final.

 

[TOT70]

I believe we have the more talented side. However talent only goes so far. We were shown up as they played a locked down game style that works against our less imposing brigade. To beat them at their own game we need bigger bodies. Or more easily, a robust game plan that exposes their deficiencies. Longmire had the right idea Saturday night he switched things around and exposed Jacobs in areas he was uncomfortable. Our next big step forward may not come from on field improvement. We have to be more dynamic in the coach's box. Someone on here suggested getting an RFC coaching panel together to rip apart the game in order to identify our weaknesses and therefore develop counter measures. I reckon that's not a bad idea. We're not too far away however the amplification of finals makes it look and feel a lot worse than it is.

Apologies if I'm totally wrong as I haven't had the strength to watch the replay. My opinion above was gleaned through the fuzzy lens of a half filled plastic beer receptacle.

We always let North dictate the terms in our games. They always have an extra tall in the backline, usually Hansen, and an extra tall up forward. Lately this has been Waite. Consequently, they outmark us at both ends. This has happened in nearly all of our recent losses. We always go into the next contest under the assumption that this time our superior ball use will hurt them because we will switch the play and catch them out.

We probably would too. Except that Scott is wise to this tactic so in the final North prevented our defensive switches of play, which would have exposed their plodding midfield. They denied the switch time and time again. Why did Chaplin have his brain-fade against Nahas that led to the most ridiculous goal in history? Because the switch was denied, that’s why. He just wanted to switch.

Scott seems to learn from us, we don’t seem to learn from his tactics. Not learn enough anyway. Hardwick actually selected Griffiths to keep the pressure on Hansen so he wouldn’t be able to jump around on his own taking intercept marks. It worked, too, until he took Griffiths off. Why? That was the march-losing move right there. When you deny the opposition a little advantage, you don’t give it back ten minutes into the third quarter. A plan that you half implement is no plan, really. Did north decide 10 minutes into the third quarter that we could have the switch again? Ummmm… no.

Remind me again. What did Hansen do in the last quarter? I seem to recall some running around taking intercept marks on his own. Again. Meanwhile, Waite was off the leash all game because he was too tall and too quick for Batchelor. Off course Rance would make Waite look like the hack that he is but if we take Rance off Petrie then he gets off the leash.

Like I said, North force us to play the game on their terms. We might be thinking that it could be a good idea if we beat them next year. How about we match their forwards on a like-for-like basis and find an ornery bugger to play on Hansen. I’ll bet we belt them if we can do this.

That is where Hardwick has his major issue as a coach. He is process-driven. He doesn’t like to move away from his processes to counter the tactical coaches who are looking for little advantages against his processes.

BTW, instead of sledging Boomer Harvey he could try actually tagging him. Unless the strategy was that if he was too busy rolling around laughing at lame sledges he wouldn’t be able to play properly. Bit of a stretch al the best of times. Boomer doesn’t really have much of a sense of humour.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

We always let North dictate the terms in our games. They always have an extra tall in the backline, usually Hansen, and an extra tall up forward. Lately this has been Waite. Consequently, they outmark us at both ends. This has happened in nearly all of our recent losses. We always go into the next contest under the assumption that this time our superior ball use will hurt them because we will switch the play and catch them out.

We probably would too. Except that Scott is wise to this tactic so in the final North prevented our defensive switches of play, which would have exposed their plodding midfield. They denied the switch time and time again. Why did Chaplin have his brain-fade against Nahas that led to the most ridiculous goal in history? Because the switch was denied, that’s why. He just wanted to switch.

Scott seems to learn from us, we don’t seem to learn from his tactics. Not learn enough anyway. Hardwick actually selected Griffiths to keep the pressure on Hansen so he wouldn’t be able to jump around on his own taking intercept marks. It worked, too, until he took Griffiths off. Why? That was the march-losing move right there. When you deny the opposition a little advantage, you don’t give it back ten minutes into the third quarter. A plan that you half implement is no plan, really. Did north decide 10 minutes into the third quarter that we could have the switch again? Ummmm… no.

Remind me again. What did Hansen do in the last quarter? I seem to recall some running around taking intercept marks on his own. Again. Meanwhile, Waite was off the leash all game because he was too tall and too quick for Batchelor. Off course Rance would make Waite look like the hack that he is but if we take Rance off Petrie then he gets off the leash.

Like I said, North force us to play the game on their terms. We might be thinking that it could be a good idea if we beat them next year. How about we match their forwards on a like-for-like basis and find an ornery bugger to play on Hansen. I’ll bet we belt them if we can do this.

That is where Hardwick has his major issue as a coach. He is process-driven. He doesn’t like to move away from his processes to counter the tactical coaches who are looking for little advantages against his processes.

BTW, instead of sledging Boomer Harvey he could try actually tagging him. Unless the strategy was that if he was too busy rolling around laughing at lame sledges he wouldn’t be able to play properly. Bit of a stretch al the best of times. Boomer doesn’t really have much of a sense of humour.

Astute as always TOTs. A lot of people are using the "process driven" label as though this is widely known and makes Dimma rigid and unchanging. Do we actually "know" this? Part of me thinks it is right but that Richmond has needed this for a long time. What I hope is that once the "process" stuff is so ingrained as to become automatic there can be more flexibility because there is a solid base of automatic behaviours that will keep us in games.

 

[TOT70]

Astute as always TOTs. A lot of people are using the "process driven" label as though this is widely known and makes Dimma rigid and unchanging. Do we actually "know" this? Part of me thinks it is right but that Richmond has needed this for a long time. What I hope is that once the "process" stuff is so ingrained as to become automatic there can be more flexibility because there is a solid base of automatic behaviours that will keep us in games.

Absolutely. This is where our improvement has come from. We were still in that game last weekend until the last few minutes because our processes are sharp.

That extra little bit that is needed to jump up into the contender class will not come from process. It will come from tactics and adapting to the nuances of each opponent.

Take a coach like Alistair Clarkson, for example. He is even more process-driven than Hardwick is. His players do the same thing, over and over again. Hardwick has mimicked much of Hawthorn’s game plan. Truth is, he was probably responsible for most of it, along with Ross Smith.

What he hasn’t been able to do as yet, is introduce the points of difference. X-factor forwards like Cyril Rioli, Bruest and Puopolo- they touch the ball, it’s a goal. Players with excessive pace like Smith and Hill. Playmakers like Mitchell, Hodge and Burgoyne camping out across half-back. Flexible players who can play anywhere like Mitchell, Hodge and Burgoyne, along with Roughead and Lewis. Players who protect their playmakers-when was the last time Gibson or Suckling had to pick up a man?

Why doesn’t Cotchin go to half-back when he is tagged? Why don’t Deledio and Martin switch between the middle and half-forward? Why don’t they all play across half-back together sometimes like Mitchell, Hodge and Burgoyne do? Why is our defence set in concrete? If the match-ups are wrong, why don’t we mix it up? Where are the swingmen? Why does Vickery spend so much time up forward? Why don’t we have a couple of speedy X-factor forwards to go with the stars? Everybody else does. Where is the raw pace? Why don’t we rotate younger players through the 22 more? It was looking good mid-year when Menadue, McIntosh and Ellis were all playing together, what happened to that? Surely there were a few other players in the reserves who could play a few games here and there? McBean? McDonough? Castagna? Astbury? Dea?

To me, that is what is missing. We had too many players who played every game. We need to work on depth and options. We need to find our points of difference so that teams like North can’t just keep using the same tried and tested tactics every time they play us.

 

[tigersnake]

What happened to 'we have to stop doing this and move on?' 8-

 

[K3]

What happened to 'we have to stop doing this and move on?' 8-

Shhhh... TOT70 is on a mucho impressive roll. Let it flow mate, let it flooooowwww...

 

[TOT70]

What happened to 'we have to stop doing this and move on?' 8-

If I say it often enough I might believe it.

 

[jb03]

Absolutely. This is where our improvement has come from. We were still in that game last weekend until the last few minutes because our processes are sharp.

That extra little bit that is needed to jump up into the contender class will not come from process. It will come from tactics and adapting to the nuances of each opponent.

Take a coach like Alistair Clarkson, for example. He is even more process-driven than Hardwick is. His players do the same thing, over and over again. Hardwick has mimicked much of Hawthorn’s game plan. Truth is, he was probably responsible for most of it, along with Ross Smith.

What he hasn’t been able to do as yet, is introduce the points of difference. X-factor forwards like Cyril Rioli, Bruest and Puopolo- they touch the ball, it’s a goal. Players with excessive pace like Smith and Hill. Playmakers like Mitchell, Hodge and Burgoyne camping out across half-back. Flexible players who can play anywhere like Mitchell, Hodge and Burgoyne, along with Roughead and Lewis. Players who protect their playmakers-when was the last time Gibson or Suckling had to pick up a man?

Why doesn’t Cotchin go to half-back when he is tagged? Why don’t Deledio and Martin switch between the middle and half-forward? Why don’t they all play across half-back together sometimes like Mitchell, Hodge and Burgoyne do? Why is our defence set in concrete? If the match-ups are wrong, why don’t we mix it up? Where are the swingmen? Why does Vickery spend so much time up forward? Why don’t we have a couple of speedy X-factor forwards to go with the stars? Everybody else does. Where is the raw pace? Why don’t we rotate younger players through the 22 more? It was looking good mid-year when Menadue, McIntosh and Ellis were all playing together, what happened to that? Surely there were a few other players in the reserves who could play a few games here and there? McBean? McDonough? Castagna? Astbury? Dea?

To me, that is what is missing. We had too many players who played every game. We need to work on depth and options. We need to find our points of difference so that teams like North can’t just keep using the same tried and tested tactics every time they play us.

you are generally describing teams other than Richmond.

And we haven't had a great swingman since Paul Bullus.

 

[Sintiger]

It's 8 days now and if anything I am more disappointed than the day we lost. I think the fact the North is heading to perth adds to it because if we had won i have no doubt we would have beaten Sydney as well

There has been some great dissection here but around the traps and a little of this site there seems to be a feeling we were not hard enough or determined enough and i don't buy that, there was to me a great desire to win.

There was some poor coaching , there were some individual brain fades and some skill errors but what I still can't get over is despite the fact that we were well beaten in contested possession and Dimma was generally outcoached with 5 minutes to go we were still in it. We had so many players down as well. It wouldn't have taken much for us to win that game but we didn't.

The other thing i don't buy into is that we need a lot to take the next step. We need natural improvement from a few youngsters, I am really excited about Corey Ellis as an example, we need one or two players with speed on the outside and we probably need a ruckman. We get those things are we are top 4 imo.

 

[AngryAnt]

Like most of losses this year sin.. We weren't smashed and could have stolen the game. I put this down to our defensive pressure mostly.

And we ground out some sh!tty wins too. In some ways this is a positive... We aren't far off a few more wins above the 15/we had this year. Dimma's magic is slow but it does work eventually.

 

[Tigers of Old]

Absolutely. This is where our improvement has come from. We were still in that game last weekend until the last few minutes because our processes are sharp.

That extra little bit that is needed to jump up into the contender class will not come from process. It will come from tactics and adapting to the nuances of each opponent.

Take a coach like Alistair Clarkson, for example. He is even more process-driven than Hardwick is. His players do the same thing, over and over again. Hardwick has mimicked much of Hawthorn’s game plan. Truth is, he was probably responsible for most of it, along with Ross Smith.

What he hasn’t been able to do as yet, is introduce the points of difference. X-factor forwards like Cyril Rioli, Bruest and Puopolo- they touch the ball, it’s a goal. Players with excessive pace like Smith and Hill. Playmakers like Mitchell, Hodge and Burgoyne camping out across half-back. Flexible players who can play anywhere like Mitchell, Hodge and Burgoyne, along with Roughead and Lewis. Players who protect their playmakers-when was the last time Gibson or Suckling had to pick up a man?

Why doesn’t Cotchin go to half-back when he is tagged? Why don’t Deledio and Martin switch between the middle and half-forward? Why don’t they all play across half-back together sometimes like Mitchell, Hodge and Burgoyne do? Why is our defence set in concrete? If the match-ups are wrong, why don’t we mix it up? Where are the swingmen? Why does Vickery spend so much time up forward? Why don’t we have a couple of speedy X-factor forwards to go with the stars? Everybody else does. Where is the raw pace? Why don’t we rotate younger players through the 22 more? It was looking good mid-year when Menadue, McIntosh and Ellis were all playing together, what happened to that? Surely there were a few other players in the reserves who could play a few games here and there? McBean? McDonough? Castagna? Astbury? Dea?

To me, that is what is missing. We had too many players who played every game. We need to work on depth and options. We need to find our points of difference so that teams like North can’t just keep using the same tried and tested tactics every time they play us.

Cracking posting Tottie.

 

[tigersnake]

It's 8 days now and if anything I am more disappointed than the day we lost. I think the fact the North is heading to perth adds to it because if we had won i have no doubt we would have beaten Sydney as well

There has been some great dissection here but around the traps and a little of this site there seems to be a feeling we were not hard enough or determined enough and i don't buy that, there was to me a great desire to win.

There was some poor coaching , there were some individual brain fades and some skill errors but what I still can't get over is despite the fact that we were well beaten in contested possession and Dimma was generally outcoached with 5 minutes to go we were still in it. We had so many players down as well. It wouldn't have taken much for us to win that game but we didn't.

The other thing i don't buy into is that we need a lot to take the next step. We need natural improvement from a few youngsters, I am really excited about Corey Ellis as an example, we need one or two players with speed on the outside and we probably need a ruckman. We get those things are we are top 4 imo.

Good post and agree with everything. On the desire to win though, yes, but wasn't channelled properly. Scared to lose rather than daring to win, coaches and players at fault there. (Having said that. you'd reckon a team that was scared to lose would have given Harvey a little less space ).

But agree

 

[23.21.159]

Our accuracy and their relative inaccuracy kept us in it.
If we had kicked at the rate they did and vice-versa, it would have ended 23.7 to 9.9.

 

[[email protected]]

Back 6 almost unchanged all year ....few injuries. A strength but in the end a weakness as coaches didn't want to mess with it. A real mismatch against the North talls and told in the end. It made made the Griffiths selection more perplexing as he not only was not asked to fill that void but also didn't restrict Hansen in the forward half.