-
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.
Tom Roach threads [Merged]
- Thread starter Ready
- Start date
Re: Back with a bang: Tom Roach
Thanks to the Mildura policeman for bringing up Plough's comments, which I hadn't heard/seen.
Let's not forget that Tom Roach has played only eleven games of senior football. As with most young players he needs to be taught and exposed to pressure and challenges.
Hopefully this development continues next year. Let's also not forget that if Tom is given these challenges and improves to the level of being regularly able to take on good opposition players and beat them, it releases Kane Johnson for a ball-extracting role or to be an extra running player.
Thanks to the Mildura policeman for bringing up Plough's comments, which I hadn't heard/seen.
Let's not forget that Tom Roach has played only eleven games of senior football. As with most young players he needs to be taught and exposed to pressure and challenges.
Hopefully this development continues next year. Let's also not forget that if Tom is given these challenges and improves to the level of being regularly able to take on good opposition players and beat them, it releases Kane Johnson for a ball-extracting role or to be an extra running player.
Re: Back with a bang: Tom Roach
Good stuff General, it doesn't matter whether you are a front-runner, a tagger, a bench-warmer, 5 possessions just isnt enough. Its not extremely hard, if you are fit, to run with a player and STOP them. The skillful taggers are able to run off at the opportune time and get possession themselves. In fact many taggers get alot of possessions as they are led to the right spots. Obviously based on Terry's comments, his instructions weren't purely to tag. Again a great test deviced by Terry Wallace, to a player on the fringe of existence. Although Im sure the standing of Roach at the football club was decided before the weekend's game, but I dont think his game on the weekend did anything to enhance his chances. Unfortunately thats the sentimental-free reality. I dont like his chances of staying.
The_General said:
Good stuff General, it doesn't matter whether you are a front-runner, a tagger, a bench-warmer, 5 possessions just isnt enough. Its not extremely hard, if you are fit, to run with a player and STOP them. The skillful taggers are able to run off at the opportune time and get possession themselves. In fact many taggers get alot of possessions as they are led to the right spots. Obviously based on Terry's comments, his instructions weren't purely to tag. Again a great test deviced by Terry Wallace, to a player on the fringe of existence. Although Im sure the standing of Roach at the football club was decided before the weekend's game, but I dont think his game on the weekend did anything to enhance his chances. Unfortunately thats the sentimental-free reality. I dont like his chances of staying.
Re: Back with a bang: Tom Roach
I think the quality of Kane Johnson's tagging games, where he has not only been able to shut out the opposition player but maintain plenty of possessions himself, has put the stamp on Kane predominantly in that role in the future. This may be the position that gives most value to the Tigers now. On that basis, where else can Tom play? How does he go above the myriad of smaller dashing players now on the Tiger list?
Ready said:
I think the quality of Kane Johnson's tagging games, where he has not only been able to shut out the opposition player but maintain plenty of possessions himself, has put the stamp on Kane predominantly in that role in the future. This may be the position that gives most value to the Tigers now. On that basis, where else can Tom play? How does he go above the myriad of smaller dashing players now on the Tiger list?
Re: Back with a bang: Tom Roach
A splendid job as President of Tom you've done Ready.. :clap
But don't be too surprised if he isn't there come '07.
A splendid job as President of Tom you've done Ready.. :clap
But don't be too surprised if he isn't there come '07.
Re: Back with a bang: Tom Roach
In some of those games Johnson got barely a dozen touches. The point is that Tom Roach has played eleven games of senior football and is learning the caper. Has Johnson been doing the run-with role not because it is the role to which he is best suited, but because he is the player who can most likely take on a run-with role and win consistently? If so then he is unavailable to be played in another position, and the team suffers as a consequence.
It is ridiculous to expect a young player to come in to the seniors for the first time in twenty weeks, take on a run-with role, beat his opponent pointless and churn out twenty-five quality possessions. More sensible to bake the cake before getting out the icing bag and the marzipan flowers.
GoodOne said:
In some of those games Johnson got barely a dozen touches. The point is that Tom Roach has played eleven games of senior football and is learning the caper. Has Johnson been doing the run-with role not because it is the role to which he is best suited, but because he is the player who can most likely take on a run-with role and win consistently? If so then he is unavailable to be played in another position, and the team suffers as a consequence.
It is ridiculous to expect a young player to come in to the seniors for the first time in twenty weeks, take on a run-with role, beat his opponent pointless and churn out twenty-five quality possessions. More sensible to bake the cake before getting out the icing bag and the marzipan flowers.
Re: Back with a bang: Tom Roach
Couple of things, GO. Where would you prefer Kane to play? In a tagging, negating role, or in a more creative, positive role, demonstrating his skills?
Also, are you comparing the two jobs that were done by Kane and Tom? Because if you are, that's silliness. How can you honestly compare what a player of the experience of Kane does to what a young guy with only a few senior games does? Obviously Kane will do a better job. Instead of focussing on the difference in stats gained and effectiveness of the possessions, look at the job as a whole. Did Braun have much effect? No. Did Judd? Slightly more. Yes, Kane had more stats than Roach, but how often has he played on a top class player, compared to Roach? Surely you can admit Kane's probably got the tagging deal down pat by now...
I honestly thought Roach's performance, while not setting the world alight, showed he had the negative aspects of his game right to be an effective tagger, and just needed to work on getting and using the ball whilst doing said tagging. I think it deserved one more year. I for one would love to see Kane in a more attacking role, and giving Roach and maybe Polo the tagging roles next year.
Edit: seems I read your mind, Ready...
Couple of things, GO. Where would you prefer Kane to play? In a tagging, negating role, or in a more creative, positive role, demonstrating his skills?
Also, are you comparing the two jobs that were done by Kane and Tom? Because if you are, that's silliness. How can you honestly compare what a player of the experience of Kane does to what a young guy with only a few senior games does? Obviously Kane will do a better job. Instead of focussing on the difference in stats gained and effectiveness of the possessions, look at the job as a whole. Did Braun have much effect? No. Did Judd? Slightly more. Yes, Kane had more stats than Roach, but how often has he played on a top class player, compared to Roach? Surely you can admit Kane's probably got the tagging deal down pat by now...
I honestly thought Roach's performance, while not setting the world alight, showed he had the negative aspects of his game right to be an effective tagger, and just needed to work on getting and using the ball whilst doing said tagging. I think it deserved one more year. I for one would love to see Kane in a more attacking role, and giving Roach and maybe Polo the tagging roles next year.
Edit: seems I read your mind, Ready...
Re: Back with a bang: Tom Roach
Skybeau and Ready,
Kane Johnson actually struggled early on in the season when he was in a free role. Its one of the reasons I feel he was then asked to tag, to see if he could get some form going. Well, look at his stats since he did, they're very impressive. So to answer your question Skybeau, I think as a pseudo-tagger Johnson has refound himself and has ended being far more creative in that role.
I'm not comparing the two at all. Obviously Roach did an OK job as a tagger, but I question where you are heading when you are giving your young guys a game and they play negative, stopping footy. To me that indicates a lack of confidence. If defensive skills are being taught why not work off a half-back flank ala Rainesy, you will learn alot more about the game that way. If Roach is to be kept on the list purely being groomed aa a tagger (as you seem to suggest he should) then it would be a first in footy. I'd be interested to know which other 20yo's in the competition are being groomed to tag. I'm not a huge fan of taggers, I know they are a necessary evil. I have no respect for pure stoppers like Baker, whose job is to almost illegally stop playmakers from doing their thing. The skills of these types of players are usually average.
As for opportunities, Roach was unlucky that he was injured halfway through the season, and maybe he hasn't neem given the opportunities he deserves. But that's partly luck, it's unfortunate that in that time, other players have put up their hands; Foley, White, Howatt and moved ahead. That's footy, thats life. One thing Im sure of, is the Richmond FC cannot afford to keep all the smaller running players on the list. Inevitably Im afraid, I think Roachy will go. If he doesn't then of course I hope he grasps his opportunites next year. My opinion based on the games I've seen him play both in the seniors and in the magoos is he is not good enough. I said the same of Pettifer, so I might be wrong.
We'll soon know!
Skybeau and Ready,
Kane Johnson actually struggled early on in the season when he was in a free role. Its one of the reasons I feel he was then asked to tag, to see if he could get some form going. Well, look at his stats since he did, they're very impressive. So to answer your question Skybeau, I think as a pseudo-tagger Johnson has refound himself and has ended being far more creative in that role.
I'm not comparing the two at all. Obviously Roach did an OK job as a tagger, but I question where you are heading when you are giving your young guys a game and they play negative, stopping footy. To me that indicates a lack of confidence. If defensive skills are being taught why not work off a half-back flank ala Rainesy, you will learn alot more about the game that way. If Roach is to be kept on the list purely being groomed aa a tagger (as you seem to suggest he should) then it would be a first in footy. I'd be interested to know which other 20yo's in the competition are being groomed to tag. I'm not a huge fan of taggers, I know they are a necessary evil. I have no respect for pure stoppers like Baker, whose job is to almost illegally stop playmakers from doing their thing. The skills of these types of players are usually average.
As for opportunities, Roach was unlucky that he was injured halfway through the season, and maybe he hasn't neem given the opportunities he deserves. But that's partly luck, it's unfortunate that in that time, other players have put up their hands; Foley, White, Howatt and moved ahead. That's footy, thats life. One thing Im sure of, is the Richmond FC cannot afford to keep all the smaller running players on the list. Inevitably Im afraid, I think Roachy will go. If he doesn't then of course I hope he grasps his opportunites next year. My opinion based on the games I've seen him play both in the seniors and in the magoos is he is not good enough. I said the same of Pettifer, so I might be wrong.
We'll soon know!
Re: Back with a bang: Tom Roach
Possibly the coaching staff feel the best way to develop Tom Roach as a footballer is to play him in run-with roles. This does not mean he will be pigeon-holed as a tagger forever. It just means that at this point in time it's thought this is the best way to go about things.
You mention Raines being played as a back-pocket or half-back flanker after he didn't set the world on fire as a wingman -- as we now know, this idea has been wildly successful. Chalk up a win to the brains trust. If you'll recall, Roach was given the job on Mark Williams in the tin-pot cup game back in February. For whatever reason, it was decided that this experiment would not be continued. So Plan B was to give him licence to run and get his hands on the pill as much as possible at Subiaco in Round 3. This was going swimmingly until Tom ran into Shane Tuck and got injured.
Say Roach is kept on the list next year and is given five consecutive games in the seniors. What is to say that he won't be given an exclusively defensive role for two of them, then given a specific task on an opposition half-forward flanker, then played on a wing and told the shackles are off and to run and create and get his hands on it, and then revert another tagging job the next, with the proviso that he has to win a good deal of his own ball? The previous four weeks would, one would hope, have much better equipped him for this task. Also what is wrong with having three or so players competent at run-with roles? Player A is losing his tussle for whatever reason, so change the match-up and introduce Player B. Player A has done good jobs as a defensive midfielder for three weeks in a row. Now use Player B in that role, with the result that Player A has slipped under the radar of the opposition's coach and gets himself thirty touches due to a lack of attention. Both these scenarios are surely not implausible.
It is also a furphy to suggest being given a run-with role implies a lack of confidence in a young player's ability. Rather, what it says is that we believe you to be good enough to nullify this player's influence. Michael Braun is by no means a great player, but he is definitely a good player who can be very damaging. To tell a young player that the coaching staff reckon he is the player for this job shows the brains trust have confidence in him. Surely no-one is suggesting that Kane Johnson being told he is the man for the job on a Peter Burgoyne or Nick Stevens is implying that the coaching staff have a lack of confidence in Johnson? Totally the opposite: it says that we reckon you can beat the opposition's gun and beat him and play a large part in us winning the game. Why is doing this with a young player any different?
Possibly the coaching staff feel the best way to develop Tom Roach as a footballer is to play him in run-with roles. This does not mean he will be pigeon-holed as a tagger forever. It just means that at this point in time it's thought this is the best way to go about things.
You mention Raines being played as a back-pocket or half-back flanker after he didn't set the world on fire as a wingman -- as we now know, this idea has been wildly successful. Chalk up a win to the brains trust. If you'll recall, Roach was given the job on Mark Williams in the tin-pot cup game back in February. For whatever reason, it was decided that this experiment would not be continued. So Plan B was to give him licence to run and get his hands on the pill as much as possible at Subiaco in Round 3. This was going swimmingly until Tom ran into Shane Tuck and got injured.
Say Roach is kept on the list next year and is given five consecutive games in the seniors. What is to say that he won't be given an exclusively defensive role for two of them, then given a specific task on an opposition half-forward flanker, then played on a wing and told the shackles are off and to run and create and get his hands on it, and then revert another tagging job the next, with the proviso that he has to win a good deal of his own ball? The previous four weeks would, one would hope, have much better equipped him for this task. Also what is wrong with having three or so players competent at run-with roles? Player A is losing his tussle for whatever reason, so change the match-up and introduce Player B. Player A has done good jobs as a defensive midfielder for three weeks in a row. Now use Player B in that role, with the result that Player A has slipped under the radar of the opposition's coach and gets himself thirty touches due to a lack of attention. Both these scenarios are surely not implausible.
It is also a furphy to suggest being given a run-with role implies a lack of confidence in a young player's ability. Rather, what it says is that we believe you to be good enough to nullify this player's influence. Michael Braun is by no means a great player, but he is definitely a good player who can be very damaging. To tell a young player that the coaching staff reckon he is the player for this job shows the brains trust have confidence in him. Surely no-one is suggesting that Kane Johnson being told he is the man for the job on a Peter Burgoyne or Nick Stevens is implying that the coaching staff have a lack of confidence in Johnson? Totally the opposite: it says that we reckon you can beat the opposition's gun and beat him and play a large part in us winning the game. Why is doing this with a young player any different?
Re: Back with a bang: Tom Roach
If the coaching staff really thought of developing Roach they would have given him more game time. Instead they play him in the last game as a tagger, it seems because Kellaway declined to play. TWs comments in the press conference doesnt seem to be glowing of his efforts. Much of what has happened this year for Roach seems to point to a delisting to me, Im relying on instinct here, but as mentioned, time will tell.
Ready said:
If the coaching staff really thought of developing Roach they would have given him more game time. Instead they play him in the last game as a tagger, it seems because Kellaway declined to play. TWs comments in the press conference doesnt seem to be glowing of his efforts. Much of what has happened this year for Roach seems to point to a delisting to me, Im relying on instinct here, but as mentioned, time will tell.
Re: Back with a bang: Tom Roach
So your saying Ready, if Roach wasnt tagging Braun we would have good pumped :rofl USELESSSSSSSS! Get rid of him TW
So your saying Ready, if Roach wasnt tagging Braun we would have good pumped :rofl USELESSSSSSSS! Get rid of him TW
Re: Back with a bang: Tom Roach
Ready, you have made some excellent incisive points. I think Roach deserves another year. Hopefully TW thinks so too.
Ready, you have made some excellent incisive points. I think Roach deserves another year. Hopefully TW thinks so too.
Re: Back with a bang: Tom Roach
Personally i'd like to see Roachy make it as a footballer, But me thinks he's not upto the standard required.
Therefore he should be cut for the list if we want to be a club moving foward.
Personally i'd like to see Roachy make it as a footballer, But me thinks he's not upto the standard required.
Therefore he should be cut for the list if we want to be a club moving foward.
Re: Back with a bang: Tom Roach
Perhaps sky. :hihi
However Braun looks to be well down on form or is carrying an injury.
Just trying to keep Roach's performance last week in perspective.
skybeau said:Because he was so traumatised at being flogged by Roachy the week before, you reckon ToO?
Perhaps sky. :hihi
However Braun looks to be well down on form or is carrying an injury.
Just trying to keep Roach's performance last week in perspective.
<
Show me the money!!!!
|
Richmond v Western Bulldogs, round 17, 2001 on Foxsports tonight (4/05/10) [Merged]
>
