Richmond's win over Geelong was a win for football

I watch the tiges when I can and I just don't see the so-called ugly footy that some people speak of when they talk about Richmond. Yeah, you could say that because I'm a tiges fan that winning can gloss over for me any negative and unattractive-looking play, but, I just haven’t seen what AJ Mithen seems to be implying, and I’m not hearing it from the ‘experts’ in the media either. I haven't watched heaps of footy though, and so I'll give a take from what the guys at Champion Data have said about Richmond this year (if I remember correctly). The tiges are not a particularly good contested footy side as Kris said. They aren’t even an elite pressure side in and directly around the contest. But, they have been extremely good at imparting pressure and/or perceived pressure away from the contest. This should mean that when their opposition breakaway from a stoppage, options to deliver the ball are extremely well-covered which then puts pressure on the ball holder to be precise with their disposal or else (and possibly made harder again by the possibility of a tiger closing in on their tail from behind). This type of pressure increases the odds of a turnover occurring, and then, as Neil and Samuel and others have noted, they ‘run and gun’, with hard and fast running, bounces, tap-ons, knock-ons , forward handpasses and kicks on the overlap etc. So, the reality is probably that the tiges don’t like stoppages. [They got killed in the centre clearances against Port Adelaide in the 2nd quarter, and against Geelong. The Port Adelaide mids “bullied” the tiger mids (i.e they just looked bigger and stronger than their tiger equivalents)]. So instead, the tiges try to keep the ball in play and moving forward and I believe that, in theory, they should not like the congested rolling-maul type of scenario. The Tiges are also 2nd in average points-for kicked per game (or were before the Port v Demons match anyway i.e I think Melbourne are probably still number 1), and have the best percentage in the comp at present, and so are far from a dour low-scoring side. If some people don’t like the state of play in the AFl at present, I doubt that it is due to Richmond.

i was just tired when i made that comment Neil. I definitely want the Tiges in the GF, of course. I just wanted to let Angela know that i think MCG tenants do get an advantage if they make it to the last day.

I think AJ Mithen should maybe think twice (or at least once) before commenting next time. He can’t have seen too many Richmond matches in the past 18 months. Absolutely no idea.

Agree with you big time on this one - we could sit here all day listing reasons why Geelong won't win the premiership because I can think of plenty. Geelong has no offensive set up to speak of. Tom Hawkins has consistently under-performed his entire career and now he's the only player for the Cats who is any threat in front of goal. Richmond, West Coast and Sydney will all smack their forward line for six come finals time. Dangerfield in front of goal was a media machine thought bubble. I can remember them saying he would kick 80+ as a regular forward option. Womp womp. The experiment of GAJ, Joel Selwood and Patrick Dangerfield has failed. I'm trying to think of a good comparison in another sport, watching them play together. It feels like an NBA side drafted Allen Iverson, Steve Nash, Spud Webb and Muggsy Bogues on to one team and asked them to go and get a ring. All great players in their own right but together it's just crowded and unbalanced.

I'm so confused by the tone of this comment - is this sarcasm or something? Richmond are definitely are free flowing side with a huge emphasis on run and carry. Extremely low possession totals coupled with consistent scores of 100+. High bounce numbers, high inside 50s. And in regular play it's always the long, breakaway forward handball, the coach-killer of the past and now a lethal weapon, combined with a long-range bomb forward.

Alph it will be discussed more and more the rest of the year as we lead up to the rule changes coming in October. Glad you broke the ice with it and look forward to more discussions in regard to exactly what the rule changes will bring. We need to have the great play makers of our game able to showcase their wares not stuck in a clog of 20 blokes on one MCG wing. People quote the WCE v SYD GF's but they were not all stuck with 25 blokes around the pill like we are seeing now. Imagine a dour, congested GF this year where it all up and down scrums on one MCG wing in beautiful Spring sunshine and a side wins with 60 points. The only winner out of that is the side who ends up in front and their fans. Everyone else sees an ugly game, the brand is shown around the world as ugly and fans from 17 other clubs are left lamenting another shocking GF.

Well I used to watch them live every second week so I'm well aware of their offensive skills particularly when their average winning margin at home was 60 points. They regularly beat sides by 100 points at the Gabbatoir and one year beat the Eagles by over 150. Given the Eagles ended up playing finals that year its probably some sort of record, i.e. ''the largest home and away defeat of a team that played finals in AFL history''. Feel free to google it. The point I was making was that their back half was was every bit as good as their front half and there is nothing wrong with playing defensive footy if that's what it takes to win a flag. Not sure what point you were making other than saying ''the Lions played attractive footy''...if you wanted a prize for stating the obvious, congratulations, mission accomplished. The congested slog fests we get today are more a function of the AFL messing with the rules than anything else. Players are given far too much leeway when they are caught red handed and the ''deliberate out of bounds'' interpretations mean players are scared to kick long to space in case it goes out of bounds. I elaborate on this point somewhere else on the Roar so Im not going to repeat it here.

@ Alphingtonian 4.26 pm Very well argued article. Yes, it is important for the game that ugly, congested rubbish football does not triumph over fast ball movement, long, direct kicking into the forward line. Your comments about low income fans being unable to attend games at high ticket priced venues such as Geelong -and perhaps many games in Perth and Adelaide, are also sobering. Do we want to make AFL matches affordable for low income people, like they are at the MCG? It will be a tragedy if we don't.

They are for three quarters, and then their superior fitness sees them overrun sides in the final quarter. A neutral fan wouldn't pay money to see them.

Absolute Drivel

I'm glad you mentioned Essendon. They are all about pace. How's it working for them?

I was going to make a similar point in my other reply, but thought it was long enough. This is one thing that really annoys me with clubs focusing on higher returns for a smaller stadium. They leverage reduced capacity to push up prices of reserved seats in particular. Arguments of home ground advantage aside, does anyone really think a 30k crowd is better than a 60k crowd just because the club makes a few more dollars? West Coast and Adelaide have had this benefit for years. I don't want to go the way of EPL or some American sports where supply and demand mean most people can't afford to go to games.

I really like this comment.

Geelong have been asking for more games in Geelong for decades. More games or all of their home games? I know they asked for 8 in 2016 but only got 7 but otherwise I can't find any evidence either way of what they have historically asked for. I guess my recollection is different to yours because until recently I was sure they weren't complaining too much about a couple of games in Melbourne, particularly for their Melbourne based supporters. Happy to be debunked but not merely by your memory over mine. Home’ clubs get 41% of gate takings at the MCG (Geelong not being a ‘home’ club they make even less). Geelong gets 90% of gate takings at Kardinia Park. I assume you are quoting an old Fairfax article from 2011 for these figures (unless they are still exactly the same) though it doesn't say Geelong would get less than another home team, so not sure where you got that from. 90% of takings for a 30k crowd would be about the same as 41% for a 65k crowd which the MCG should have got on Sunday with better fixturing (AFL's fault) and better weather (can't help that), but really I'd like to see some proper dollar figures because I don't trust arbitrary statistics which lack context. (What is the revenue any club receives from an extra full MCC member turning up for example?) Remind me how much of your clubs own money was tipped into building or developing the MCG? Zero is the answer. There was a levy ($1.30) on all tickets for at least a season, probably 2 or 3, I am not sure. My membership was increased to cover this plus I paid it on away games. That is not really much different than Geelong members indirectly funding Kardinia Park with the club paying $20 million. The Kardinia Park redevelopment has largely benefited Geelong FC over any other club and therefore it is not unreasonable for the club to fund more of it, just like clubs built stands at suburban clubs in the past. The MCG redevelopment benefited a number of clubs and other sports so taxpayer contributions were far more justified, though I don't have a problem with the levy either. The GF is the only game that has an equal allocation of seats for each of the two competing sides. Not sure why you are saying this. Tickets for the other finals are sold to members of both clubs at the same time and therefore allocation is effectively even, AFL and ground memberships aside. Geelong ‘hosting’ the Tigers at the MCG clearly gave the Tigers an unfair and undeserved advantage. A game in Geelong would be 85% Geelong supporting. At the MCG that drops to maybe 30% supporting Geelong. If only 30% of the crowd last year supported Geelong in the Qualification Final then it is because so many Geelong members didn't bother buying tickets.