It's Not All Negative Fellas

[_RT_]

The old RT returns.
This is your best work for some time RT and it shows some massive holes in some of the negative posters arguments.
The doomsdayers need to look at the attributes of individual players and see if they have the tools to make it.
The club from the coaching staff to the fitness staff and the head doctors are then the ones that need to get the best out of each individual player.
Breaking it down as you have done there is no shortage of talent but a lot of it has been seen on a far to inconsistent basis.
It could be that players are not good enough but even guys like Hughes have shown what they "can do" .... They just need to make this the standard they play at not their good games.
Post Vickery and Collins have shown enough this year to suggest they will all be good players.

I think that TW had a game plan that the players thought was too complicated and by not being able to follow it they lost confidnece and started to doubt their own ability.
Confidence, is a very powerful tool and if a new coach can fill the boys with confidence and belief there is more than enough talent on our list to climb the ladder......and quickly!!

Don't get me wrong there is still a long way to go before we're even a contender for the 8. I was just trying to point out that the majority of our list have yet to reach the age that players enter the peak years of their career. Its all well and good having that much potential on the list, but it will mean bugger all if they don't put their heads down and do the hard work needed to fulfill that potential.

 

[Goldust]

same old wallace flawed argument that built a list of xx number of player under xx years old while the rest of the competition dont draft anyone and all of a sudden richmond becomes a good side in several years because they fit the age profile.

I THINK the big thing the majority on here don't consider is, yes, we do have a lot of players with a potential upside and if we can develop them we'll improve.
But we are starting from such a long way back. People neglect the fact other clubs have players who have a tremendous upside and will develop.
The rest of the league doesn't stagnate as Richmond suddenly improves.
other clubs will be improving too!!!

 

[Tiger67]

Don't get me wrong there is still a long way to go before we're even a contender for the 8. I was just trying to point out that the majority of our list have yet to reach the age that players enter the peak years of their career. Its all well and good having that much potential on the list, but it will mean bugger all if they don't put their heads down and do the hard work needed to fulfill that potential.

I'm not so sure about this RT.
I'm not about to declare a top 4 finish next year but top 8 is a real chance.
We have a lot of players that have appeared down in confidence this year compared to the end of 2008.
I was a TW supporter but since he left some of the things that players have been saying would suggest that he lost the playing group well and truly in the off season and especially in the weeks after the round 1 debacle.
Regardless of what was said if you do not have confidence in a coach and the game plan in place then you can not perform at your best because you are always thinking about the negatives you have towards the coach/gameplan.
It is easy to say they should be able to adapt and execute a game plan that they don't really support but to do it is another kettle of fish.
The power of negatives in the mind should never be underestimated, and this applies equally for a positive mindset.
Something we have lacked for a long time at Tigerland

 

[Rayzorwire]

Is that still good enough? Your approach may be more pragmatic, but it is prone to accepting less than the best which I personally don't subscribe to. It leads to Collingwood style lists.

Pragmatic in the sense that I don't think there's any way we (or anyone else) could have come up with 4-5 decent/good KPD's, an entire quality ruck division, an entire quality midfield, the superb running half-backs necessary to be a top side, and an entire quality forwardline, in 5-6 drafts.

Sure we could get by, but would it be the best?

There are holes in the lists of all recent premiership sides and they've all been the best regardless. To build a better list than those sides requires 11-12 years of solid drafting - i.e. having blokes like Deledio, Tambling and perhaps McGuane/Polo in the veteran category and still playing very good football - and a lot of luck (over which you have no control). Then you have the problem of having to afford all those quality players and keep some of them happy to be playing at Coburg when they'd be the no.1 option at another club on much better money.

You will notice that I don't rank Riewoldt as core so guess what we may need to find more if he fails. It is about covering all bases, not just assuming because a player is promising that they will make the grade.

He's one of the very few players you've labelled as a certainty (or highly likely if you prefer) to 'make it.' I think it is a bizarre call to then later state that there's a reasonable chance he'll fail to even become a 'core' 3rd tall forward - especially when you rate blokes like Petrie, Thomas and Jones as having reached that 'core' level.

Playing Vickery as a forward is a good idea in the short term, but long term we need him in the middle. Our structure would be best suited to Vickery in ruck, with 2 specialist tall forwards. Those suggestions you made are practical and no doubt that what the club will try to implement. Again my underlying philosophy is to be the best in every regard so I'm not satisfied with it.

Unless the salary cap and the draft are abolished, no side will ever be able to lay claim to having the best in the league across every line of their side. Your philosophy is wonderful in theory and is exactly the right aim in many facets of life, but the equalisers of the salary cap and the draft make it impossible in the AFL.

You want to be the best razor or do you want to be collingwood pretenders?

Geelong were 'pretenders' in the same vein not so long ago. The level they were at prior to '07 and the level Collingwood is at now represent the benchmark we should be (and no doubt are) aiming at in the next 2-3 years.

From there, over the 5-6 next years we can build a list with quality right through from the remaining top shelf veterans to the juniors.

 

[Bojangles17]

I THINK the big thing the majority on here don't consider is, yes, we do have a lot of players with a potential upside and if we can develop them we'll improve.
But we are starting from such a long way back. People neglect the fact other clubs have players who have a tremendous upside and will develop.
The rest of the league doesn't stagnate as Richmond suddenly improves.
other clubs will be improving too!!!

true goldy but using Roos as an example it was their EXPERIENCE that made the difference in 2H no rookies caught my eye and last week for an example WHO kicked NINE...so in last fortnight I could argue our inexperience cost us the points...we can work on that

 

[Rushed]

Riewoldt can't take a chest mark and Tambling can't kick a regulation goal.

 

[santa claws]

There is an old saying in football that says, players don't normally reach their peak until they reach 24. It was something that was used right through out my playing days by my coaches and invariably it was true.

When looking at our current list we have the following players who are yet to reach 24:
23 - Foley (84 games) Pattison (59) Raines (56) Thursfield (47) Jackson (62)
22 - Polo (45) Tambling (88) Thomson (28) Hughes (16) Morton (43) McGuane (47) White (49) Graham (13) Deledio (99)
21 - Nahas (12) JON (13) Hislop (14)
20 - Connors (10) Edwards (40) Riewoldt (39) Collins (10) Gourdis (0) Putt (0)
19 - Rance (10) Post (2) Cotchin (23) Vickery (4) Browne (1) Gilligan (0)

Thats 29 players who are current on our list that are still yet to reach their peak. The 14 players in bold are the ones I would say have established themselves as best 22 players.

I believe this is a good sign for the future, but realise that there is still a fair bit of work if that group is going to be the one that finally takes us back to the top. To do this we need to continue down the path that we have started down and get games into those named above and embrace the draft with both arms.

by this i take it you advocate giving all players a minimum of 6 yrs on the list or till they turn 24 or older. regardless of ability.
in the age of the draft if we adopt this approach we will never turn enough players over to improve the list.

and as far as i know its widely regarded in the industry that the general rule of thumb is smls by 20 mediums by 22 and talls by 24. of course their is factors that can come into play so there will be variations. hence its a general rule of thumb or guide.

best 22 what does that mean. are our so called best 22 afl standard players or core group, or very good, or elite, or below standard. why would you hang onto a below standard player until they turn 24. lets be serious its a little more complicated than just saying players dont reach their peak until they turn 24.
anyways a lot of players show form enough that is close to their peak at ages 22 23. some before.

some go by games played which i see you have done as well and yep you look at both along with attributes and weaknesses.

this debate was primarily about age and people saying age wise we are behind other sides yet we will have more players than geelong who are 22 and over. we have a similar amount of players who have played 40 plus games.
40 50 games 4 5 yrs in you should be a senior player or close to a senior player. and yes there is still improvement going on.

a variation is the mature recruit take jake king 25yo played 35 or 40 games is he to be classified purely a development player. somehow i dont think so.
at 25 what improvement is left. at 25 will he ever overcome his deficiencies.

i reiterate this age excuse people keep coming up with is a furphy. quality and structure are what people should be focusing on. we are no worse of than a lot of teams when it comes to age.

finally one of the major reasons this club has failed so miserably over the yrs
has been its inabilty to properly rate players before drafting them, and then failing to assess them once they are on the list and giving them far to long in the system.
we are guilty of drafting trading for and keeping players who are deficient in basic skills and requirements.
its one thing to get a pick wrong but to hang onto that pick for an inordinate amount of time just exacerbates the problem.

the other thing that has killed us is shocking list management in particular list structure.

this is exacerbated by keeping players too long. we could well have 6 tall forwards and 6 tall defenders and 4 ruckmen in our system, yep structure could look great, but if 3 are veterans and 5 or 7 are below standard it leaves your list in tatters.
you could have 22 mids onballers but if only a handful can kick to afl standard you are in trouble. this is where quality comes into it. it in fact takes over.
by quality i mean you are looking for core list players who meet minimal requirements.

 

[_RT_]

by this i take it you advocate giving all players a minimum of 6 yrs on the list or till they turn 24 or older. regardless of ability.
in the age of the draft if we adopt this approach we will never turn enough players over to improve the list.

Not at all, if a kid comes into the side and is showing something from the start and improving each year then I would put the time and effort into them. I'm not saying that we keep them on until then, more that most players don't fulfil their potential until 24.

I'll address list turnover later.

and as far as i know its widely regarded in the industry that the general rule of thumb is smls by 20 mediums by 22 and talls by 24. of course their is factors that can come into play so there will be variations. hence its a general rule of thumb or guide.

All I can say is I'm glad we didn't follow these criteria to the letter.

best 22 what does that mean. are our so called best 22 afl standard players or core group, or very good, or elite, or below standard. why would you hang onto a below standard player until they turn 24. lets be serious its a little more complicated than just saying players dont reach their peak until they turn 24.
anyways a lot of players show form enough that is close to their peak at ages 22 23. some before.

Best 22 is exactly what it says, its the best 22 players we have at that particular time. As we go along obviously players will drop out and others will come in. Look at the start of the year Simmonds, Bowden, Johnson & Brown were all in the best 22. Now those 4 have been replaced by kids either trying to establish or have established themselves as best 22.

As I said above, as long as the kid is improving each year then I would keep them around. If they aren't doing that then by all means move them on ASAP. You can easily turnover enough players each year. As it stands right now, I have 14 players on our list that are delisting candidates. If we turnover 5-8 this year and bring in 5-8 kids to replace them you start the process which allows you to continually turnover that many each year. Remember, there has to be a minimum of 3 players delisted each year, not that difficult to find another 2-3 players to delist as well.

The problem is our list manager has to have the courage to stick by their convictions and make the hard calls necessary on those that may have shown something, but haven't come on, Schulz is a perfect example of a player who showed something, improved a little but then stagnated, the right call to make with him was to take the deal Port offered a couple of years ago, but out then list manager either chickened out or was over ruled by TW.

some go by games played which i see you have done as well and yep you look at both along with attributes and weaknesses.

My criteria for assessing a young player is what they do in their first 22 games. Usually that will be spread over their first 2-3 seasons depending on the type of player KP/ruck or midfielder/flanker, as long as they show something during this time then I'm more prepared to give them time to develop, if they don't then as I said, they should be moved on.

this debate was primarily about age and people saying age wise we are behind other sides yet we will have more players than geelong who are 22 and over. we have a similar amount of players who have played 40 plus games.

40 50 games 4 5 yrs in you should be a senior player or close to a senior player. and yes there is still improvement going on.

Geelong currently have 27 players on their list over 22, by the start of next season that number could be over 30. Incomparison, we currently have 30 and by next year could have under 25 depending on delistings/retirements: Richo(?), Cousins(?), Johnson, Brown, Bowden, Simmonds, Pettifer, Schulz, Polak, Silvester and Hughes are all candidates to be moved on. Nahas and JON are the only players who will turn 22 before next season starts and JON is no certainty of being here either.

As highlighted in my post we have 14 players who are under 24 that are in our best 22, of them 10 have 40 or more games to their name and are now the foundation of our side for the next 5-10 years. The positive is, if you use the 24 years old before they peak rule, the future is looking pretty good, as long as they do the hard yards necessary.

a variation is the mature recruit take jake king 25yo played 35 or 40 games is he to be classified purely a development player. somehow i dont think so.
at 25 what improvement is left. at 25 will he ever overcome his deficiencies.

If King wasn't contracted for next year he would be gone, however as he is I would hold onto him for the year and delist him next year.

i reiterate this age excuse people keep coming up with is a furphy. quality and structure are what people should be focusing on. we are no worse of than a lot of teams when it comes to age.

I wasn't using it as an excuse, just pointing out that for all the negative thoughts floating around here, somethings can get missed. If our side was chock full of the older experienced players and we put in that type of performance I would have been annoyed, however, yesterday I wasn't.

finally one of the major reasons this club has failed so miserably over the yrs
has been its inabilty to properly rate players before drafting them, and then failing to assess them once they are on the list and giving them far to long in the system.
we are guilty of drafting trading for and keeping players who are deficient in basic skills and requirements.
its one thing to get a pick wrong but to hang onto that pick for an inordinate amount of time just exacerbates the problem.

the other thing that has killed us is shocking list management in particular list structure.

this is exacerbated by keeping players too long. we could well have 6 tall forwards and 6 tall defenders and 4 ruckmen in our system, yep structure could look great, but if 3 are veterans and 5 or 7 are below standard it leaves your list in tatters.
you could have 22 mids onballers but if only a handful can kick to afl standard you are in trouble. this is where quality comes into it. it in fact takes over.
by quality i mean you are looking for core list players who meet minimal requirements.

The problem we faced up until 2007 was we had no development coaches in place. Very hard to develop the kids from what they were at U/18 level when you don't have anyone to look after them while the senior coach is worried about the rest of the team. At least now that problem has been addressed, we've got development coaches in place to work with the kids and its no surprise that our kids that the kids that have been drafted in the years since then are able to come in and play at AFL level almost straight up while those drafted prior to that are only now starting to come on or in some cases haven't i.e. JON and Hughes.

Also believe that list management is much better now than what it was a couple of years ago when Miller and TW were pretty much responsible for it. Our recruiting staff has gone from 1 full timer to 2 full time recruiters as well as scouts in each state IIRC. Which is part of the reason that I wasn't overly fussed if we got a PP or not, I think we have the recruiters in place now that can identify talent and will be able to find us players to fill however many picks we have come the draft.

Still a fair way to go to become a real contender but at least we seem to have finally got on the right track. Lets hope nothing happens in the next few years to derail the train.

 

[santa claws]

Not at all, if a kid comes into the side and is showing something from the start and improving each year then I would put the time and effort into them. I'm not saying that we keep them on until then, more that most players don't fulfil their potential until 24.

I'll address list turnover later.


All I can say is I'm glad we didn't follow these criteria to the letter.

to a gooddegree i agree. regards those criteria a lot of clubs use them they are general guides when assessing age and performance. i used to be sceptical myself but when used for what they are they are handy and based in sound logic.

Best 22 is exactly what it says, its the best 22 players we have at that particular time. As we go along obviously players will drop out and others will come in. Look at the start of the year Simmonds, Bowden, Johnson & Brown were all in the best 22. Now those 4 have been replaced by kids either trying to establish or have established themselves as best 22.

hmm many would argue simmonds bowden johnson brown are still best 22 and at the age of 30+.
let me ask again but with a different slant. are their replacements likely below standard core very good or elite players.
forget best 22 our best 22 is clearly bottom 4.

As I said above, as long as the kid is improving each year then I would keep them around. If they aren't doing that then by all means move them on ASAP. You can easily turnover enough players each year. As it stands right now, I have 14 players on our list that are delisting candidates. If we turnover 5-8 this year and bring in 5-8 kids to replace them you start the process which allows you to continually turnover that many each year. Remember, there has to be a minimum of 3 players delisted each year, not that difficult to find another 2-3 players to delist as well.

i agree totally with the first part or your logic in this.
the problem i have is best described as where we have rated our players. you have 14 delisting candidates i have 22 minimum so straight away my outlook is going to be worse than yours.
as for turnover this yr i can live with 8 would be looking for 10 so we differ a little there. again it comes down to how you rate the players.

The problem is our list manager has to have the courage to stick by their convictions and make the hard calls necessary on those that may have shown something, but haven't come on, Schulz is a perfect example of a player who showed something, improved a little but then stagnated, the right call to make with him was to take the deal Port offered a couple of years ago, but out then list manager either chickened out or was over ruled by TW.

hmm i think we have to be better at assessing our players strengths and weaknesses and development. schulz imo should never have been drafted with such an early pick deficiencies said he had to go in 06.one reason he has survived yr in yr out has been list management/structure.

My criteria for assessing a young player is what they do in their first 22 games. Usually that will be spread over their first 2-3 seasons depending on the type of player KP/ruck or midfielder/flanker, as long as they show something during this time then I'm more prepared to give them time to develop, if they don't then as I said, they should be moved on.

agree in large but have to add obvious provisos if you like.

Geelong currently have 27 players on their list over 22, by the start of next season that number could be over 30. Incomparison, we currently have 30 and by next year could have under 25 depending on delistings/retirements: Richo(?), Cousins(?), Johnson, Brown, Bowden, Simmonds, Pettifer, Schulz, Polak, Silvester and Hughes are all candidates to be moved on. Nahas and JON are the only players who will turn 22 before next season starts and JON is no certainty of being here either.

i count 24 26 with rookies but could be wrong i do muck up numbers as has already been evidenced.
i think milburn and harley are good bets to retire i think d jonson will be delisted. dont think their age structure will change to much.

As highlighted in my post we have 14 players who are under 24 that are in our best 22, of them 10 have 40 or more games to their name and are now the foundation of our side for the next 5-10 years. The positive is, if you use the 24 years old before they peak rule, the future is looking pretty good, as long as they do the hard yards necessary.

and as i have said just because we have players in OUR best 22 does it mean they meet minimal requirements. a few who have played 40 games and are under 24, schulz jackson pattison white mcguane. again it comes down to quality and how we rate them.

If King wasn't contracted for next year he would be gone, however as he is I would hold onto him for the year and delist him next year.

agree.

I wasn't using it as an excuse, just pointing out that for all the negative thoughts floating around here, somethings can get missed. If our side was chock full of the older experienced players and we put in that type of performance I would have been annoyed, however, yesterday I wasn't.

yep can see your point. playing plenty of kids does give everyone hope for the future.

The problem we faced up until 2007 was we had no development coaches in place. Very hard to develop the kids from what they were at U/18 level when you don't have anyone to look after them while the senior coach is worried about the rest of the team. At least now that problem has been addressed, we've got development coaches in place to work with the kids and its no surprise that our kids that the kids that have been drafted in the years since then are able to come in and play at AFL level almost straight up while those drafted prior to that are only now starting to come on or in some cases haven't i.e. JON and Hughes.

agree in part but a big part that is overlooked is we have recruited an inordinate amount of players that have chronic weakness in their games and history tells us these weaknesses are rarely overcome no matter the amount of input.

Also believe that list management is much better now than what it was a couple of years ago when Miller and TW were pretty much responsible for it. Our recruiting staff has gone from 1 full timer to 2 full time recruiters as well as scouts in each state IIRC. Which is part of the reason that I wasn't overly fussed if we got a PP or not, I think we have the recruiters in place now that can identify talent and will be able to find us players to fill however many picks we have come the draft.

i dont know about this but hope you are right. camerons record leaves a lot to be desired and some of jacksons selections do not give me confidence.
one thing ids for sure we have no choice but to go the=ru the draft process we just have to be better at it. the alternative well there isnt one.

Still a fair way to go to become a real contender but at least we seem to have finally got on the right track. Lets hope nothing happens in the next few years to derail the train.

yep i agree i think we are slowly coming to grips with what needs to be done.

oh and a good reply well said ita a joy talking with ya.

 

[Crumden]

The problem we faced up until 2007 was we had no development coaches in place. Very hard to develop the kids from what they were at U/18 level when you don't have anyone to look after them while the senior coach is worried about the rest of the team. At least now that problem has been addressed, we've got development coaches in place to work with the kids and its no surprise that our kids that the kids that have been drafted in the years since then are able to come in and play at AFL level almost straight up while those drafted prior to that are only now starting to come on or in some cases haven't i.e. JON and Hughes.

Also believe that list management is much better now than what it was a couple of years ago when Miller and TW were pretty much responsible for it. Our recruiting staff has gone from 1 full timer to 2 full time recruiters as well as scouts in each state IIRC. Which is part of the reason that I wasn't overly fussed if we got a PP or not, I think we have the recruiters in place now that can identify talent and will be able to find us players to fill however many picks we have come the draft.

Still a fair way to go to become a real contender but at least we seem to have finally got on the right track. Lets hope nothing happens in the next few years to derail the train.

Gary March was on On the Couch tonight. He said in 2004-05 we had no full time recruiters, no list manager, Greg Miller did it all. We also had 13 people in our football department. By next year we will have three full time recruiters and 26 in our football department. We were very much in the realm of amateurs not so long ago with our approach to recruiting and development.

 

[santa claws]

Gary March was on On the Couch tonight. He said in 2004-05 we had no full time recruiters, no list manager, Greg Miller did it all. We also had 13 people in our football department. By next year we will have three full time recruiters and 26 in our football department. We were very much in the realm of amateurs not so long ago with our approach to recruiting and development.

i think gary is stretching it a bit there. francis jackson was on board for the 05 draft. he may not have been on full time at that stage but it is widely known he was responsible for our picks in the 05 draft.

 

[maceman]

Gumbleton is 100 games behind others. He should have played at least 80 games by now. He's a year behind even this year's draftees.
Llyod and Lucas are there Richos. Forget about them.
Neagle is a bigger spud than Cleve Hughes.
Hurleyt will be good but has still played a handful of games.
Bombers aren't as advanced as they'd like to think they are.

How does that saying go? Clean up your own backyard first.

How about we focus on Richmond and forget the rest for now or does it make posters feel better about our woeful season to shit-can other teams?

 

[sante]

We will be fine. When our core group of youngsters reach 23/24/25, we will be a good team.

 

[richoatthedisco]

Gumbleton is 100 games behind others. He should have played at least 80 games by now. He's a year behind even this year's draftees.
Llyod and Lucas are there Richos. Forget about them.
Neagle is a bigger spud than Cleve Hughes.
Hurleyt will be good but has still played a handful of games.
Bombers aren't as advanced as they'd like to think they are.

Ah tug, the Bombers have only played 60 games since Gumby was drafted. And Hurley looks pretty damn good, as does Pears.