SA Footy

These 2 were "slowly" contradicting themselves tonight- hinting that Richmond played ugly football. No outright statements, just carefully dancing around the fact that they thought this tactic was boring & ugly, after declaring it brilliant in R1. Hmmm.... like I said, very careful, lest I would've rang up with a torrrent of abuse!

LMAO. That would have been a funny show. Can't say I miss 5 Always Adelaide a great deal.

regards,

REB

Enjoyed the Kevin Sheedy interview and his impression of the Richmond/Adelaide game,and had to agree with him.For those (Rik) who didnt hear it,Sheeds basically said Terry Wallace is put in a position which is based totally upon results on the field,and if the way he goes about it is in detriment to the game then so be it,he is not in charge of the game as a whole,only the game he is involved in,and that is all his (Richmond) supporters should be worried about.KG asked Sheeds do coaches have a responsibilty to the game as a whole,and Sheds replied no,only to the game he is coaching on that day.

Punk Rooster wrote:These 2 were "slowly" contradicting themselves tonight- hinting that Richmond played ugly football. No outright statements, just carefully dancing around the fact that they thought this tactic was boring & ugly, after declaring it brilliant in R1. Hmmm.... like I said, very careful, lest I would've rang up with a torrrent of abuse!

There is a big difference playing that style for 120 minutes vs 3-4 minutes

3 or 4 minutes! Oh dear!

regards,

REB

*ahem* This monster,albeit in a different form to what we have grown accustomed to,who created it?

cliche time:

Come back to bite you on the bum.
That'll learn you.

REB,any more?

If you're still talking about the hands off tactics - I don't care who started it. Teams will use it if they win games with it. I see a return to one-on-one footy to combat this tactic.

If this happens footy would have come full circle and be back to a 50s or 60s (maybe beyond) style!!!

doggies4eva wrote:If you're still talking about the hands off tactics - I don't care who started it. Teams will use it if they win games with it. I see a return to one-on-one footy to combat this tactic.

If this happens footy would have come full circle and be back to a 50s or 60s (maybe beyond) style!!!

Lets hope so,I would hate to see Brian Goorjian coaching a team,or worse still assist Craigy....

Punk rooster wrote:

New post Didn't Take KG & Cornes Long...
These 2 were "slowly" contradicting themselves tonight- hinting that Richmond played ugly football. No outright statements, just carefully dancing around the fact that they thought this tactic was boring & ugly, after declaring it brilliant in R1. Hmmm.... like I said, very careful, lest I would've rang up with a torrrent of abuse!

Well spotted Punkster. The formula is pretty simple. If THEY do it (flood, keepings off footy) its called: "boring, ugly football".
If WE (insert your AFL club) its called: "tactical nous"

Rik E Boy wrote:3 or 4 minutes! Oh dear!

regards,

REB

You think the Crows play "keepies off" for the entire game like Richmond do you?

MW wrote:

Rik E Boy wrote:3 or 4 minutes! Oh dear!

regards,

REB

You think the Crows play "keepies off" for the entire game like Richmond do you?

Doesn't matter how long a tactic is employed, but whether it is successfull or not- perhaps the Crows don't have the skill to do it for the entire game, but Richmond do? Richmond won, they don't have to justify anything. The only ones with egg on their face are the Crows, & Kg/Cornes- who promoted what a wonderful coaching move it was.

MW wrote:

Rik E Boy wrote:3 or 4 minutes! Oh dear!

regards,

REB

You think the Crows play "keepies off" for the entire game like Richmond do you?

No, not the entire game MW. Probably about ten minutes I'd confess to Conceed nothing was OTM with his post.

regards,

REB

Punk Rooster wrote:These 2 were "slowly" contradicting themselves tonight- hinting that Richmond played ugly football. No outright statements, just carefully dancing around the fact that they thought this tactic was boring & ugly, after declaring it brilliant in R1. Hmmm.... like I said, very careful, lest I would've rang up with a torrrent of abuse!

Since when do you need a reason to ring up and abuse Tweedle Dumb & Tweedle Dumber?

No-one should ring them up, it only encourages them.

Punk Rooster

Mate, Richmond lead the comp in regards to Clangers, whilst the Crows are ranked 15th for clangers....... so I think that answers the question regarding skill level of both sides

I think their has been too much of a knee jerk reaction to this game, the reason why the tigers tactics worked because the crows did not come to play, the crows let the tigers get the jump and we got smashed around the stoppages and did not win enough contested ball.

Their is no doubt in my mind the crows played in to the tigers hands, what will be interesting is how the club reacts to these tactics in the future and that answer may come as quick as this weekend........

Thats a good point Sydney Dog. Keepies off can only work if your team is up so a good way to beat it is to have a good first quarter and make them play catch up footy.

Doggies4ever

I don't hide the fact that I support the crows and I am disappointed with the loss but not with the tigers tactics, the crows could of dismantled it on the day and they will learn from it......

My disappointment is in regards to our record low hard ball gets, we only had 10 for the day, I have heard people point the finger at the tigers for this but that is absolute rubbish....

The tigers still managed 25 hard ball gets, so that means out of 35 contests the tigers won 25, if that was reversed the crows would of won the game.

Finally, if the crows not only manned up put identified their two or three go to men, this would of forced the game to a more traditional type of game, greater contests, which stops this slow tempo footy

twosheds wrote:No-one should ring them up, it only encourages them.

Well said !!!

sydney-dog wrote:Doggies4ever

I don't hide the fact that I support the crows and I am disappointed with the loss but not with the tigers tactics, the crows could of dismantled it on the day and they will learn from it......

My disappointment is in regards to our record low hard ball gets, we only had 10 for the day, I have heard people point the finger at the tigers for this but that is absolute rubbish....

The tigers still managed 25 hard ball gets, so that means out of 35 contests the tigers won 25, if that was reversed the crows would of won the game.

Finally, if the crows not only manned up put identified their two or three go to men, this would of forced the game to a more traditional type of game, greater contests, which stops this slow tempo footy

Hmm, I don't usually read those stats but 35 contests in 4 quarters of football seems low - that less than 1 every 2 minutes!

Even if the Crows didn't improve their share of hard ball gets from about 1/3rd if they had manned up they would have increased the number of total hard gets and improved their chances of getting the ball from 0% to 29% for each additional contest. That would have been enough extra possessions to win the game!

Blue Boy wrote:

twosheds wrote:No-one should ring them up, it only encourages them.

Well said !!!

Some one must be listening to them,maybe its the one who would suggest people should not ring them.If you did not listen,why would you care how they carry on?