Devon Smith
It sounds plausible.
The only thing id question is , if the rutten gameplan was scraped after the geelong game , why did the players go out and look so flat and not seemingly putting in as hard ?
Why also would zerret say what he did that people have pointed out now after a game it could b3 argued that they were let off the chains.
And why can other teams grasp complicated gameplans and implement them , but its too hard for our club??
Not questioning your info, it just raises more red flags than anything.
It reaks of the senior entrenched players knowing they peobably cant do what is asked , and instead or trying to find players who can they just allow the status quo of oh why cant we just run around and play on instinct.
2 Likes
Roaming Brian spoke to Rutten after the match. He seemed really upbeat. Spoke really well
3 Likes
Actually my first thought was fark I wish he was the coach
1 Like
He was like “Now I can get some sleep” or along those lines.
Yeah I agree that it throws up a lot of questions. I’m not really in a position to ask them.
My take is that I feel for the paying group being dicked around. Without knowing intricate details of the structure that Rutten was trying to implement, I agree with Chris (above) that perhaps a version of it or a staggered introduction is necessary. I don’t doubt some sort of concentration on defending better is necessary.
1 Like
Thanks for posting WHWS. I realise you are a messenger and I won’t try to shoot you. This story is implausible. The idea that Worsfold approves a new defensive game-plan that was central to richmond becoming a force, which he then abandons so early in the season is not the Worsfold that played, captained and coached for 30 years. Tinkering around the edges happens regularly, especially when teams are losing.
For any credence to be given to such a change of direction, someone needs to begin by identifying clearly what the game plan was in Rounds 1 & 2 and what was different in Round 3. So far we have ‘forwards stayed deeper’. We need a bit more than that.
3 Likes
I think there were a couple of quite sensible adjustments, the most notable being that we had more stay at home forwards than we had in previous weeks but quite a dynamic and open forward line. More runb out of the backline and better set-up around the stoppages also, but having players run into form and confidence was a big factor also. Raz is an important player for us, as is Zaha when he gets going.
Have to say that Melbourne allowed us to play that way. St Kilda went in with the plan to shut us down and GWS closed our channels also, whereas Melbourne seemed to choose to go head to head, backing their system against ours. We won.
I don’t know if we’d have got away with that against better disciplined teams, but having said that the injection of form and confidence will do us the world of good.
1 Like
Game plans mean different things to players and fans. To fans, we think of the overall “style” of play. No doubt this matters to players, but they have far more tactical concerns that we can only loosely observe.
From the outer, I made the points in rd1 and 2 that our inside 50 counts were healthy in both games, and we won the time in possession count vs the Saints. We played poorly, but we hadn’t returned to the super defensive posture of the Neely days.
I think we simply held our nerve better. The Dees are a very high pressing team, hence the super high i50 counts they produce. But we actually kept our forwards deep and were rewarded with early goals on the counter punch. This built our confidence and we held onto the ball really well, winning the time in possession despite losing the i50s.
2 Likes
No worries, all good. As I say it is prob not possible for me to ask follow up questions which there are many. The info I received said that the robust coaches meeting came after the Cats JLT loss. A senior staff commented ‘don’t expect much for the first month as the playing group don’t understand the set up they are being taught and it is massively different to what they know’.
Most concerning is the reported division within the coaching ranks.
No stress ‘shooting the messenger’. I believe this so I’m happy to put it up but realise it opens up a lot of questions. I’m very concerned for our season.
2 Likes
Difference of opinions or divisions?
You can have different views, state that you don’t think this is the best way to do it, but accept it’s the overall decision and then work with what’s been decided… while voicing your views as required.
Worsfold and Richardson to provide the leadership on this.
I was told division.
1 Like
You could argue Richmond’s defence is not the be all end all. There last 4 games has resulted in one win against Carlton. If it wasn’t for Carlton crud backline they could have lost. Take out Rance who is one of the greatest readers of the play there are some big holes especially now u need to start 6-6-6.
If so would have to imagine it’s Rutten related
The line coaches once Neeld went were essentially able to coach how they wanted. Now Rutten in over riding that again.
I think Boot mentioned Skipworth was one rumoured to be undermining Woosh
I’d take all this game plan stuff with a grain of salt. I think all of us fans went searching for answers in the first months and a few of these things got discussed until it’s accepted truth when really it’s not.
It’s allways the case that poor sides start the year off well. Most of the teams outside the eight last year are up and about and even inside the eight. It’s not because they learnt a game plan over preseason but rather just what happens every year.
Sides that clearly miss the eight book guys in for surgery mid season vs teams playing finals or aiming for finals who book them in post season. Finals sides start preseason a month later than non finals sides(na for us).
Thus you get the Brisbane’s, Stkilda, Freo, GC winning games early because they are fitter and better prepared early in the season. It will sort it self out by the bye.
In terms of our start to the season I don’t think this game plan stuff is the key driver. Instead we were unfit(expected due to injuries) but also low in intensity(should be critical of).
4 Likes
Against GWS, I thought the players were not match fit. It turns out almost every one of them were “second guessing themselves” and it just looked like they were not match fit.
It was interesting that in that game our best player was Saad. Maybe his natural game is close to the one promoted by Rutten. Defend first, then if the opportunity presents, go full on attack ?
Why did you change?
Isn’t the most likely answer that they were not match fit still the most likely. 2 weeks later and a few games under the belt they have improved fitness.
Could be Chris. My take was they were a mess as they had spent the entire pre-season and JLT trying to learn a stucture that was a long way from what they were used to. After the coaches were called to a meeting it was decided to abandon it. So I presume GWS was a mess as they reverted to a previous structure that they hadn’t trained since last year.
First and foremost- the effort was the biggest difference. The attack on the ball and man.
We held our structure up forward much much better. Our forwards didn’t get dragged up the ground
Players were running hard to create options
Our captain was BOG. When your captain is leading the way, everyone follows
Senior players stood up
We took our chances early in front of goal, which improved confidence around the whole team
3 Likes
Based on the info from WindyHillWindsock. I mean we all like to use occams razor to find the simplest explanation, but the dynamics of teams of coaches and teams of players within organisations of clubs can be so complex, the simplest explanation is not always correct. ( mind you lack of match fitness might have been a factor )
1 Like