The way I read the requirement, any standard ACL applied on R1 should be in number format, while any standard ACL applied on R2 should be in named format. Don't see it as a demand where actual ACLs need to be applied, although with such a requirement for each router, would expect the expectation of an ACL, or ACLs, being needed on both routers. (BTW, remember, functionally, a standard ACL is a standard ACL, whether in numbered or named format.)
OP later mentions that "When using standard ACL, you should create the ACL as close to the destination as possible.", well that's a recommendation for efficiency. Anytime you're going to intentionally drop packets, you want to do that ASAP. This to avoid such packets traversing the network needlessly.
However, often we will place ACLs in a less the ideal, for efficiency, locations. For example, perhaps R1 and R2 are in different ASs? Or perhaps, for maintainability, we don't want ACLs scattered all through the network, we want to maintain them at some certain point.
Standard ACLs, since they only can use source IPs, placement may depend on the rule we're trying to create, as unlike an extended ACL, we cannot also use a destination parameter. So, we may need to apply the ACL in a location where a destination requirement might only be met by where the ACL is placed. I.e. an extended ACL might be applied anywhere in the transit path, but not so for a standard ACL.
Your topology has four host networks, so any rule that requires limiting access based on destinations, will require a standard ACL on the router that can make a destination distinction by the interface the ACL is being used on.
So, looking at the first requirement:
Only PC1 and PC3 can access 192.168.1.0/24
(if we could use extended ACLs)
permit ip host 172.16.1.1 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.255
permit ip host 172.16.2.1 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.255
!deny ip any any !remember evey ACL has this as an implict ending ACE
or
permit ip 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.255 host 172.16.1.1
permit ip 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.255 host 172.16.2.1
!deny ip any any !remember evey ACL has this as an implict ending ACE
As already noted, we cannot use a destination, but we can select interfaces, so
on R2's g0/0 (which is the 192.168.1.0/24 network) we can apply, as a named standard ACL, out:
ip access-list standard Rule1
permit host 172.16.1.1
permit host 172.16.2.1
i.e. the above will only allow packets from those two hosts to enter 192.168.1.0/24
Does the above make sense?
As you noted it was the first rule causing you the most trouble, is that enough to get you going, or do you need further help?
