Sam Newman - Richmond dumbest team ever. | 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.

Sam Newman - Richmond dumbest team ever.

Seeing that Danny Fooley is on a performance based contract it appears that he is starving...........I've noticed he's lost a bit of weight lately...........I advise he lines up at centrelink to atleast be able to afford a couple of dim sims.
 
have to agree with newman on this one, we have dumb footballers and a dumb coach and a dumb selector (beck)

one question though....

didnt newman a few weeks ago say Geelong was the dumbest football club ever??

We must have taken the crown off them.
 
I admire Sam Newman in the fact he direct and speaks his mind.

Well, should it be the players not following the coaches instructions or the coaches game plan, one or both are accountable and should either put start putting results on the board, or farewell the club.

I am not a get fan of the flooding tactics, as it is a boring type of football to watch. However, if we didnt floor on Sunday, we would of lost by the same margin as we did against St Kilda.

What I want to see, if players are not following the coaches game plan, then they should be benched or look for a new club.

If its Danny Frawleys poor game plan that players are playing to, then maybe Danny should consider a change of employment.

However, as I am only a mere supporter and member who is not privillaged to know whats happening in the coaches box, I cant decide who is at fault.
 
even though sam is pretty arrogant, he is barely wrong.
hes been saying we are the dumbest team all year and even when we were 6-2 earlier this year, he was saying we wouldnt make the finals cos we are dumb.

he also said last night that richmond should play to the strengths- which is there tall players.
ottens, richo and staff are great marks in a contested situation. why then did we have either staff or otto on the bench in the first quarter last week when we were kicking with the wind.
Why not rest them in the goal square and do what richmond do best and bomb it long in the forward line?
it would provide a contest even if we didnt take a mark and give those crumbers a chance and let them do what they are there for and crumb off the pack.
 
nwonash said:
I am not a get fan of the flooding tactics, as it is a boring type of football to watch. However, if we didnt floor on Sunday, we would of lost by the same margin as we did against St Kilda.
Click to expand...

I can't tell the difference, to be honest nwonash.

Some of the losses we've had by 5 or 6 goals have felt like 70+ losses to me.

It might look respectable on the scoreboard, but it's anything but a respectable effort.

If we're not disciplined enough to stick to a "normal" game plan, why can we stick to a flooding style of game?

I don't get it. :-\
 
i dont think its just about kicking it long to our foward line, i think it also is the fact that we dont move the ball forward quick enough.

most good teams play on at all costs, the swans did it magnificently last week against the lions. We dont kick to good leads, if there isnt a guy directly on you when you mark it quickly turn around and get the ball foward, if your about the get crunched going for a mark make sure you make it a contest for the crumbers to get.

we dont have enough numbers when we run instead we have players who stand a kick behind and wait for our turn over and hope the opponents kicked it to them... thats why we are dumb... dumb footballers
 
MC24 said:
If we're not disciplined enough to stick to a "normal" game plan, why can we stick to a flooding style of game?
Click to expand...

But with all due respect, if our game plan was to floor, would our players stick to that game plan ? As they dont seem to follow games plans.

The best plan would be as Sam said, kick it to Richo, Ottens & Holland. Other sides might be able to hold one player down, but can they hold three down ? And then throw in Stafford.

Richmond has forgotten the basics of Football, theres too much handball, not enough manning up, kicking to a one on three isnt exactly percentage football and more importanly, they should kick it long and up the guts to one of one marking fowards, with your Krakouers, Rodan, McGarth roving the pack. How simple is that ? Its just the basics in football.
 
PuntRoadRoar said:
i dont think its just about kicking it long to our foward line, i think it also is the fact that we dont move the ball forward quick enough.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with you PuntRoadRoar.

Players take too long to decide what to do with the football. They are all the oppersition to man up.

And then they kick it to a one on two situation.

It known fact that the skill level is terrible. Its time to address that problem, until it is addressed, we will never improve.
 
nwonash said:
But with all due respect, if our game plan was to floor, would our players stick to that game plan ? As they dont seem to follow games plans.
Click to expand...

That's what I'm saying nwonash. Or at least I thought I was. :p
 
To my way of thinking every option involves the coach.

If this is the way he wants the team to play then he's obviously not up to it.

If it's not the way he wants them to play there are 2 scenarios.

Either the players don't or aren't capable of following his instructions, or he can't get his instructions across to the players.

Whatever the case, the coach has to take responsibility. It's his job to make the team play the style of play he wants them to.

There seems a massive lack of communication and respect to me.
 
No worries nwonash. ;)

Whatever it is Rosy, I just hope they're doing something about it.
 
PRR hit the nail on the head regarding the fundamental flaw in our game plan............we don't move the ball quick enough because we don't play on often enough............this stems from what I've been saying all along............not enough hard running from players behind the play being prepared to leave their man to provide a run to receive handballing option to the player with the ball.

Listening to Brereton (who I regard as having a very smart football brain) on tripple M a few weeks back he said that richmond were very poor in supporting one another in that our hanball run to receives was very low as opposed to the opposition (can't remember which game it was)..................he said that our running and supporting all over the park was poor and that players were to weary of leaving their direct opponents to support the player with the ball...........this inhibited us to play on more often which resulted in ugly, stop start, grinding, low scoring football.

This not only needs to be part of the overall game plan, but also needs to be practice on the training track.
 
If this is not the game plan then why is it that all 22 seem to want to play that way.

I could understand if a few did it, but we continually do it, so how can it be that everyone is planning to this mystical non game plan.

Do they expect us to believe that they have gone out there and made up their own game plan in defiance of the spud.

Part of the problem is that there is no structure in the foward line and appears to be no set play when going forward. It was mentioned on MMM last week that this lack of set play going forward was making life impossible for the crumbers as they had no idea where the ball was going to be deliverred to.

Harry is spot on about moving the ball. We instictively look to handball backwards. Anyone would think we are playing ARL.

This is ok when you have players at full pace running the lines, but we handball backwards to players standing still who are then coreled and forced to kick high from a standing start or wide to get around the blocking player.

T-Shirt Tommy must be ROFLHAO of he is reading this. It's exactly what he said a couple of week ago on club corner.

For those who agree to disagree, Sam said exactly the same thing on MMM last week in that "if this is Danny's game plan then he is not up to it and should go".
 
Sam was on the bugs bunny with what he said, he just said it in his usual ambigious, self preserving way.I perceived it to mean, if the players are dumb, the coach must be as dumb or even dumber. The Moorabin moron must be one hell of a nice guy because the media would have crucified him by now otherwise.
Regardless of what any of them say, Is it not the coach who should be held accountable at the end of the day?
(a point most of you have raised on other posts.)
"On victory we thrive just eat 'em alive"...start with the coach boys.
 
Sam Newman is right. We must be the laughing stock of the AFL. I mean if James Hird can come out and say that Richmond take so long to get the ball up the forward line and in the meantime the opposition has flooded it - really! I'm sorry - I like Danny - but he must be held accountable for bad coaching and the players for lack of "football smarts".

BTW - Thanks Rosy for including that link as we don't get the Footy Show up here till very late, sometimes not at all.
 
A Couple of points.

Rischmond overpossess the football and because the skills of some players aren't as good as your Port Adelaide's or your Brisbanes we get caught out and turn the ball over to the opposition too easily.

With all of our talls and crumbing forwards the likes of Krakouer, Rodan and McGrath the simple logical thing to do is to try and get the ball into the forward line as quickly as possible (to a contest if necessary) and have faith that the quality players that we have up forward will be able to kick goals.

The other thing I can't work out is if Frawley is such a bad coach, how come we had such a good year in 2001? We have had a few changes to the list but the list and the core group of players in the Senior team is still the same. I keep scratching my head?
I don't know he we can go from being 3rd in 2001 to such pitiful results over the past two seasons with essentially the same group of core players?
 
(I don't know he we can go from being 3rd in 2001 to such pitiful results over the past two seasons with essentially the same group of core players?)

Because we have the same core of pitiful senior players who are two years older - Richo, Cambo, Gaspar, Holland and Dudcan an co!!!
 
The issue Sam raised about us playing direct football got me thinking.

I went back to some old stats when we played direct football, moving the ball quickly into the forward line, kicking long to our talls.

Unfortunately I didn't have any stats for 95 when swooper was in charge, but I found the following;

1996 Season.

Goals for the Year

Richo 91 with regular bags of 5-7 goals

Naish 34

Rogers 15

Merenda 21

Campbo 15

Powell 15

Charles 13

Bond 17



1997Season

Richo 47

Rogers 10

Naish 12

Merenda 18

Daffy 26

Bowden 20

Powell 18

Charles 14

Holland 13

Harrison 16

Gale 12

Nichols 16

We seemed to have a good spread of goal kickers during this period. Would be interesting to read our spread this year.

Interesting to see how many players we have that have kicked of 30 goals. Not to many I would have thought and it would drop away quickly after that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
< Saints say they are on verge of blockbuster status | 2001 Season >
Official PRE merch now on Redbubble!
Top Bottom