two talls is two less smalls and it was our depth of smalls that hurt them.

and just who would those two talls be? Watson - lets not rush him. Wait 'til there is exprience around him - do it right, not rush everything for the sake of a game - trust ourselves - ratts did and we won.

And who would be the other tall?

Next week they will bring in Bower - I hope - and have a different plan - nut for this first week - given the unavailable's - it was a good plan.

_________________
This type of slight is alien in the more cultured part of the world - Walsh. Its up there with mad dogs, Englishmen and the midday sun!

One tall, and replace one of Thornton & White with Watson was what I was angling at. Watson would have been fine on anyone other than Riewoldt, and would have sped up our delivery up the field.

_________________
29 different attributes,
And only 7 that you like;
20 ways to see the world,
Or 20 ways to start a fight.

Love your work as a rule Jimmae, but I'm not sure I'm with you on this one. I think dannyboy makes some very good points. As Rexy said earlier in the thread it is much easier in hindsight and as much as the thought of T-Bird and Whitey as our key talls was giving me Riewoldt double figure nightmares before the game, I can see where the MC were coming from given who they had to choose from.

Given his fitness base Watto would have been the equivalent of going in with another player underdone. You know as well as anyone that game situation means that Watto would have had to play on Riewoldt at some stage. Given how stretched we were even the Tigers would have had the sense to run the young bloke around and blow him up and when not doing that drag him to the square as much as possible. We already had enough underdones, another one and it could have been 08 again. Given how we faded in the challenge game against Geelong you can see why they went for a runner as the sub. We aren't privy to the fitness teams reports on individual players which could explain why some decisions are made. If for example it had been one of our mids that went down instead of Waite and we had a tall as a sub could you imagine the howls if we faded in the last...the hindsight factor is not applicable pre-game unfortunately. There is also the tactical factor...If no-one goes down then I imagine Lucas was pegged to come on for a carrots or Russell, all three looked short of a gallop. As has been mentioned Watson will most probably get his chance against the GC forwards. Lots of things to consider with that sub rule. Imagine the howls of derision on our boards directed towards Ratts if we had stayed injury free and we didn't bring our sub on until halfway through the last quarter as malthouse did.

We nail the easy shots especially those that should have been monty set shots in the first and a young Richmond side is shattered and out of the game by halftime. What to me is of more concern is our persistent mental frailities as evidenced by that lack of composure in front of goal and not coming out switched on in the third. Although it was offset a bit by the strength of will to comeback when we looked dead, better sides will not give us the opportunity Richmond did to get back in the game. We need those mental demons gone.

Great post Belisarius.

The sub rule comes down to luck. Perhaps they should have two subs to choose one from to eliminate that luck of draw about it. As it stands now it all comes down to what size player rolls his ankle or cops a head high bump from the opposition who in a final will do anything.

I think the AFL were a bit sneaky here. It just so happens that their new concussion rule will make it a lot riskier for coaches to use the sub tactically

why is brown gone for the year?

_________________
Last edited by true_blue3 on Mon Sep 26, 1981 5:07 pm; edited 92 times in total

Well done Brett Ratten.

_________________
I am as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more!!!

ACL

that's Brown as in Nathan, not Leigh

..as soon as Watson is ready he'll be introduced, for his zone/press busting long accurate kicking just as much [if not more this early] as his defensive abilities..

_________________
..if you can't be good, be good at it..

Will be good to see BHB. I guess the concern will be whether he has the fitness to play his role in our zone /press. Takes a few preseasons to be ready for all that pushing up and back down the ground.

This week is the perfect chance to give him some game time. I am not expecting to see too much of him this year after 1/2 a preseason but he may suprise.

What kind of bleedin' foreign sport speak is this "press" business - do they have exercise equipment out on the ground that I don't see? Even "zone" is a bit iffy - it 'ain't' Gridiron.

_________________
Just because I'm offended, doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Can Watson play forward as Hurley is demonstrating with Essendon* atm? He could be a asset if his range is 0-60m

_________________
You heard it here first!

haha my bad, realised when nick said acl

_________________
Last edited by true_blue3 on Mon Sep 26, 1981 5:07 pm; edited 92 times in total

Ratten played him there in a couple of practice games there. I dont think he played as well up forward. When playing back he seems more at home. His long kicking is so valuable for us down back can hit a target 60m out. We have been crying out for a defender that can hit a target. Will love to see him in a real match and to see if his composure stays the same.

We may need another tall to replace Waite if he goes for the back kick.

Stupid, stupid action by a player who needs to keep his head on straight.

_________________
Let slip the Blues of war (with apologies to William Shakespeare) (and Sir Francis Bacon, just in case)

Waite is so frustrating - he is too bloody valuable to us to be on the sidelines through suspension.