Hardwick outcoaches again

[theflea]

How about some perspective...we are not finals material, we are rebuilding.We are also the 2nd youngest team in the competition behind GWS only by 20 odd days.We bottomed out last year and rebuilding slowly. We have definitely improved and will continue to improve. The selections were baffling as i believe we lost the match on the table anyway.Daniel Stewart is the worst player in the AFL and we just didnt have the talls to compete with you guys.Whoever said we are finals or top 4 material has NFI.I will be happy to see progress on and off the field, which we are definitely achieving. Richmond have 2 years on us and that showed last night.Goodluck to you blokes for the rest of the season.

yep agree. i think your the 3rd youngest as well by 20 days(after the gold coast).

 

[ReaperX]

Except you'd be incorrect.

1st Quarter - Richmond won by 37
2nd Quarter - Richmond won by 5
3rd Quarter - Richmond won by 8
4th Quarter - Port won by 9

So we won three of the four, not the other way around. Our pre-match planning in my mind was very, very good, to set-up how to play if Port got a run on, to slow it down, to chip it around, and then when the opportunity arises, slice them open. We did it several times, which completely nullified any run on they may have got, and just as importantly, the crowd.

Very much agree with this post.

We did what a solid Top 8 side would do yesterday, we built a lead in the first, held and consolidated it during the 2nd and 3rd quarters, and in the 4th when Port were threatening with 3 quick goals, took the sting right out of it with a controlled 10 minute patch where we hit the nails into the coffin.

A good Top 8 side has a match sown up with 15 minutes to go, and that's what we did against Port.

To be a good Top 8 side, you need to smash the lower teams, consistently beat more of the mid-table teams than you lose to, and sneak a few against the Top 3 or 4 sides. So far in 2013 we've beaten Port Adelaide, Carlton, Western Bulldogs, and St. Kilda. By the end of the round, Carlton are going to be in the Top 8, as will Port Adelaide, while the Bulldogs are struggling, and the Saints are plucky but not good enough. I would say only the Bulldogs of those four teams, will be in the Bottom 5 at year's end (imo Saints are better than what their record would suggest).

We've also been beaten comprehensively by Collingwood in one quarter of footy (3rd quarter), and Geelong in a half of footy (2nd half). We were unlucky not to win against Fremantle, who are looking potentially like a Top 4 team themselves. I believe we will rue the Fremantle game later in the year, but we were never really expecting to beat the Pies or Cats, and look for the most part we were solid against them. They just ended up being better for longer though.

The point is, we're in alright shape I reckon, considering that only 2 full seasons ago (plus change) we were where Melbourne currently is now. We started the 2010 season at 0-9 guys. We were the new Fitzroy.

Speaking of Melbourne, we need to drill them next week. It will be a huge test for the maturity of the group to come out and give them a pounding! Here's hoping that they don't sack Neeld mid-week, we all know how teams can react under the reign of a caretaker coach sometimes, especially the first match!

Go Tigers!

 

[theflea]

Except you'd be incorrect.

1st Quarter - Richmond won by 37
2nd Quarter - Richmond won by 5
3rd Quarter - Richmond won by 8
4th Quarter - Port won by 9

So we won three of the four, not the other way around. Our pre-match planning in my mind was very, very good, to set-up how to play if Port got a run on, to slow it down, to chip it around, and then when the opportunity arises, slice them open. We did it several times, which completely nullified any run on they may have got, and just as importantly, the crowd.

Not to mention being 2 down on rotations.

 

[Harmichael]

Speaking of Melbourne, we need to drill them next week. It will be a huge test for the maturity of the group to come out and give them a pounding! Here's hoping that they don't sack Neeld mid-week, we all know how teams can react under the reign of a caretaker coach sometimes, especially the first match!

Go Tigers!

Mate if we lose to Melbourne I'll not only hire the shit truck, I'll install a microwave in it as well!

 

[theflea]

Hasn't Hardwick done the same , having inherited arguably the worst AFL/VFL list in history .

Which was the point that most of us said.

 

[ReaperX]

Mate if we lose to Melbourne I'll not only hire the shit truck, I'll install a microwave in it as well!

Haha and you'd be well within your right as well!

But my point is, we need to be looking at games against teams like Melbourne as locks. It's not about IF we beat Melbourne anymore, it's about HOW WELL we beat Melbourne.

It's not meant to be arrogance, but if the Suns can beat them by 10 goals, we should be able to as well. And if we are to be taken seriously, we just need to go out there and get it done.

Port also beat them by 79 points away from home, and we just beat Port by 41 at their home ground.

Something Richmond needs to learn how to do, is what Adelaide did to GWS today. When was the last time we had a 100 point win?

I wanna see Richmond destroy the Demons next Sunday, nothing less. Let's be ruthless!

 

[Dr Awkward]

I've always liked Hardwick and I reckon he's doing a good job.

The most surprising thing to me was that Port didn't put a hard tag on Deledio. That should have been one of their first moves.

 

[Total Power]

I've always liked Hardwick and I reckon he's doing a good job.

The most surprising thing to me was that Port didn't put a hard tag on Deledio. That should have been one of their first moves.

We actually had Cornes tagging Deledio, however Cornes couldnt do the job.He was also thrashed by Gablett who had 15 on him in the first quarter but then Cassissi took care of him, restricting his influence for the rest of the game.Cassissi was a big loss for us at the start of the game.

 

[Dr Awkward]

We actually had Cornes tagging Deledio, however Cornes couldnt do the job.He was also thrashed by Gablett who had 15 on him in the first quarter but then Cassissi took care of him, restricting his influence for the rest of the game.Cassissi was a big loss for us at the start of the game.

Oh yes, I do remember that now. Seemed like a very loose tag. If Cornes was supposed to be tagging that's not a good effort.

 

[tora tora tora]

Thumbs up for the game day coaching against Port, looked like the players were on the same page and stuck to the plan for 4 quarters. Injuries to players like Cotchin and Ty probably precipitated some changes to approach - notably entry into fwd 50. I think it was our most cllinical performance this year.

 

[Papa G]

Tigers were very switched on. Game plan was sound and most importantly the players executed it to a tee. Very impressed with the Tigers footskills as well. Whilst some will say Port only had 1 less scoring shot, that actually doesn't tell the story. Most Richmond shots at goal were from straight in front whereas the majority of Port's were from the pockets and this not only is reflected in the accuracy but also the decision making.

Richmond's coaching panel definately did their homework, and for the first time this year Hinkley had a bit of a shocker, especially in selection. He is only a first year coach though.

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

Richmond's coaching panel definately did their homework, and for the first time this year Hinkley had a bit of a shocker, especially in selection. He is only a first year coach though.

Like someone else said,Your in good hands with Hinkley and some decent kids coming through,Like all[Except Melbourne] developing young sides you'll have your ups and downs.

 

[Livonski]

I knew you could initiate the personalisation of a thread yet again, saying absolutely nothing relevant to the topic.

Boring. Adds nothing.

Sorry Razor, it was meant as a gag, and I suppose at your expense, so for that I apologise.

I've been called a flog, *******, fool, pissant etc in the last 48 hours, so I know how you feel. It should never get personal.

 

[TFLUA-Tiger]

Not to mention being 2 down on rotations.

Two down?

Tuck hurt himself, but who else (bar Knights who was replaced) was injured?

 

[TFLUA-Tiger]

Rayzorwire and turtle summed it up very well when they identified that we played better tempo football than we have ever done before. We dismantled port with the ball, and built pressure without it. It was very well done.

My question though, is why don't we do it more. And against teams who set up very well defensively, do we spread well enough to ensure we're not just hoofing it down the ground long to Maric in a 2 on 1?

Hardwick certainly wasn't outcoached, but his ability to make crucial moves in Gametime, under pressure remains in doubt until he demonstrates that he can make, crucial, match winning moves in the crunch time of big games.

We so thoroughly dismantled port early on that he didn't have to make big moves.

 

[Equus]

Again. Play the ball, not the man.

 

[tugga]

I don't think he outcoached Hinkley, tug, apart perhaps from the puzzling decision on the part of the Port match-committee to only take Redden into the game. That gave us a massive advantage in the ruck, which we were only able to capitalise on for one quarter (granted, this may well have been somewhat different if Tuck was not injured). Port were able to hold us to that lead for another three quarters, despite our advantages and despite the fact that they used the ball so horribly and gifted us goal after goal through turnovers.

So while you and others may see this as perverse and unfair, I would argue that it is equally valid to state that Hardwick won a quarter and Hinkley won three against the odds and despite such bad ball use. I saw an opposition coach once again adjust to the way we are doing things and completely nullify any advantage our pre-match planning and the game situation itself has afforded us.

I don't consider your opinion unfair Rayz. I am always interested in anyone's opinion especially yours as you always provide reasons for your views, whiuch I always appreciate.
I do think Dimma coached well on Saturday. I had the luxury of being there and being in the SANFL members with a seat right on the wing on the 2nd level and also didn't have my first beer until 6pm, which was a good two hours after the game .
We dominated the first half by using our run and carry style to good effect and by getting the ball into the hands of our good ball users coming from defence. Ellis and Houli in particular. This put the acid on Prt from the beginning.
What I noticed in the thiurd quarter, Port actually starting their own forward line to stufle our run and carry as that's where we were killing them (and in the centre clearances). Dimma's reaction to that was to play Chaplin and Rance very deep and bring the likes of Ellis and Houli further up the ground and also he brought our forwards cirtually to the centre. This meant that Hinkley had to adjust because he couldn't leave our forward 50m empty. So he had to abandon his own crowded forward line and crowd ours. So the 2nd half of the 3rd quarter was played back on our terms and 50-point three-quarter time lead was the result.
The first 8 mins of the 4th quarter was Hinkley actually abandoning any game plan and telling his players just to take risks. Keep in mind they needed 9 goals to win and to keep us goalless. This worked for a while, but then the message was sent to play tempo footy and work the ball forward the safe way. So in other words, Hinkley wanted risk taking and Hardwick counteracted and decided to take no risks. When Port kicked the first three, we started playing possession footy and knowing full well, that one goal at that stage from us would end the contest, we scored it and then another and it was game over. It was game over anyway, but I will credit to Dimma when I think he deserves it and I thought he deserved it on the weekend.
So at least I have explained my reasons why he coached well. Rather than others (not you by the way) saying he coached poorly but then when questioned why, can't back up their thoughts.
Do I think Dimma is a great match day coach? No, I don't. But he is clearly no idiot either.

 

[tugga]

I've always liked Hardwick and I reckon he's doing a good job.

The most surprising thing to me was that Port didn't put a hard tag on Deledio. That should have been one of their first moves.

Cornes had him. Lids shook his tag.

 

[turtle27]

If your entire point is to argue that only conceding four more points than they scored for three quarters after the early onslaught they endured, given our obvious dominance of first hands on the ball we had in the ruck, amounts to anything less than a coaching victory for Hinkley, then I'd suggest you're missing the point and/or being pedantic for the sake of it.



If our side under Hardwick in his first year had held a clearly superior list from getting further ahead for three quarters after that kind of first quarter, 98% of you would have called me a pedant and an arseh*le for not agreeing that he'd coached his way back into the game.

Lets remove the emotional attachment to 'Dimma' and just deal in straight logic.

I have no emotional attachment to Dimma at all. Call me pedantic if you like, but I simply pointed out we won three of the four quarters on the score board where it matters.

We played better tempo football than we have at any other stage this year, certainly agree with that. I would also argue that we've got a long way to go in this regard and it's an area which has been neglected too much for my liking. It's a crucial part of any good sides' game plan to be able to kill time (for many reasons) and redirect play away from a part of the ground where we're in trouble due to an injury, mismatch or whatever.

Agree. We tried it against Collingwood a couple of times in the third quarter onslaught, and we continued to turn it over through pressure from Collingwood, and our own skill errors.

Hinkley's plan is to get that bold, ball-flicking around kind of disposal that Geelong use, to become an instinctive element of how Port play. He doesn't care about them turning it over, he wants them to never give up trying to move the ball that way when they are in that offensive mode. In the first few seasons, Port will have plenty of games where they'll cough up so many decisive turnovers in key areas of the ground that the opposition are gifted too many goals to realistically be able to claw them back, much like happened with us on the weekend.

I assume you're tying to say Port's own game plan attributed to their downfall? That makes sense. But we still had to take advantage of it.

Ports disposal efficiency is tracking at 71.4% so far this year with an average of 48.6 Clangers. On Saturday the DE was down to 70.4% and Clangers at 47, ie really no different to the rest of the year. We were able to take advantage of it a hell of a lot better than the other clubs they've played this year, as did North Melbourne.

 

[nut]

I don't consider your opinion unfair Rayz. I am always interested in anyone's opinion especially yours as you always provide reasons for your views, whiuch I always appreciate.
I do think Dimma coached well on Saturday. I had the luxury of being there and being in the SANFL members with a seat right on the wing on the 2nd level and also didn't have my first beer until 6pm, which was a good two hours after the game .
We dominated the first half by using our run and carry style to good effect and by getting the ball into the hands of our good ball users coming from defence. Ellis and Houli in particular. This put the acid on Prt from the beginning.
What I noticed in the thiurd quarter, Port actually starting their own forward line to stufle our run and carry as that's where we were killing them (and in the centre clearances). Dimma's reaction to that was to play Chaplin and Rance very deep and bring the likes of Ellis and Houli further up the ground and also he brought our forwards cirtually to the centre. This meant that Hinkley had to adjust because he couldn't leave our forward 50m empty. So he had to abandon his own crowded forward line and crowd ours. So the 2nd half of the 3rd quarter was played back on our terms and 50-point three-quarter time lead was the result.
The first 8 mins of the 4th quarter was Hinkley actually abandoning any game plan and telling his players just to take risks. Keep in mind they needed 9 goals to win and to keep us goalless. This worked for a while, but then the message was sent to play tempo footy and work the ball forward the safe way. So in other words, Hinkley wanted risk taking and Hardwick counteracted and decided to take no risks. When Port kicked the first three, we started playing possession footy and knowing full well, that one goal at that stage from us would end the contest, we scored it and then another and it was game over. It was game over anyway, but I will credit to Dimma when I think he deserves it and I thought he deserved it on the weekend.
So at least I have explained my reasons why he coached well. Rather than others (not you by the way) saying he coached poorly but then when questioned why, can't back up their thoughts.
Do I think Dimma is a great match day coach? No, I don't. But he is clearly no idiot either.

Our biggest problem in the past has been our on field leadership IMO and our inability to slow a game down when the tide has turned against us (also our inabilty to captilise when we dominate). Against Port like you said we did that very well and held them back. I would give Troy Chaplain alot of credit in steering the backline and keeping the structure together. Rance plays twice as good with Chaplain in the game. Looking forward when Rance Grimes and Chaplain have playe a dozen games together in a row.
We would have won against Freo with CXhaplain playing IMO.

 

[theflea]

Two down?

Tuck hurt himself, but who else (bar Knights who was replaced) was injured?

2 down in that rotations were affected which is why we played keepings off for a while and that port could inject a fit player late(mitchell) who we couldnt match his run .

 

[theflea]

Rayzorwire and turtle summed it up very well when they identified that we played better tempo football than we have ever done before. We dismantled port with the ball, and built pressure without it. It was very well done.

My question though, is why don't we do it more. And against teams who set up very well defensively, do we spread well enough to ensure we're not just hoofing it down the ground long to Maric in a 2 on 1?

Hardwick certainly wasn't outcoached, but his ability to make crucial moves in Gametime, under pressure remains in doubt until he demonstrates that he can make, crucial, match winning moves in the crunch time of big games.

We so thoroughly dismantled port early on that he didn't have to make big moves.

The clear difference is the good teams dont ALLOW you do that to much ie manning up the free players forcing you to kick to a contest.

 

[carn tigez]

Rance plays twice as good with Chaplain in the game.

I dunno about this, Rance was close to AA form last year and this year he has struggled. Need a larger sample size before we can work out whether Chaplin's inclusion has caused this, which I don't think it has, but there's not enough data to draw the conclusion that Rance is better when Chaplin plays I'm 100% certain of that.

 

[DrMike]

Rayzorwire and turtle summed it up very well when they identified that we played better tempo football than we have ever done before. We dismantled port with the ball, and built pressure without it. It was very well done.

My question though, is why don't we do it more. And against teams who set up very well defensively, do we spread well enough to ensure we're not just hoofing it down the ground long to Maric in a 2 on 1?

Hardwick certainly wasn't outcoached, but his ability to make crucial moves in Gametime, under pressure remains in doubt until he demonstrates that he can make, crucial, match winning moves in the crunch time of big games.

We so thoroughly dismantled port early on that he didn't have to make big moves.

I think partly because good opposition teams put so much pressure back onto us that we aren't able to. For example against Port when we're kicking it around the back pockets and slowly progressing forward we were able to find that nice next target. Against Freo or Geelong they man up well and don't offer that easy progression out so the mental pressure builds up and we worry about what we're going to do. Then when the lead does present itself we're second guessing because the opposition player might be too close even though they're really not.

It's just experience and maturity. While our average age has gone up, we're still playing kids.

 

[TFLUA-Tiger]

2 down in that rotations were affected which is why we played keepings off for a while and that port could inject a fit player late(mitchell) who we couldnt match his run .

Sorry? I don't understand this.

We had two fit on the bench instead of three. How are we then two down?