One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: one-eyed on December 21, 2008, 12:54:35 AM
-
A team from the past 5 drafts 2004-2008. Whatever happens to Wallace next year this will be the recruiting legacy of his 5 year contract. Not bad...
FB: Luke McGuane, Will Thursfield, Jake King
HB: Daniel Connors, Alex Rance, Jordan McMahon
C: Richard Tambling, Ben Cousins, Dean Polo
HF: Matthew White, Cleve Hughes, Mitch Morton
FF: Shane Edwards, Jack Riewoldt, Tyrone Vickery
Foll: Troy Simmonds, Brett Deledio, Trent Cotchin
Int: Adam Pattison, Angus Graham, Adam Thomson, Tom Hislop
Emg: Dean Putt, Andrew Collins, Jarrad Oakley-Nicholls, Jayden Post, Robin Nahas, David Gourdis, Andrew Browne, Alroy Gilligan, Jarryd Silvester, Graham Polak
-
Yep, its a start ... still not a consistent top 4 side IMHO.
Plenty of work & development to do in the next few years when the ND is compromised to build a premiership side.
-
to me, the question for Richmond in '09, is should Terry Wallace have his contract extended a year or two?
:)
yes or no?
if we don't make the finals, then he will be looking like he is gone,
if we make the finals, but only play in week 1 and lose, he could be gone,
i think he should get another year!
:)
-
to me, the question for Richmond in '09, is should Terry Wallace have his contract extended a year or two?
:)
yes or no?
if we don't make the finals, then he will be looking like he is gone,
if we make the finals, but only play in week 1 and lose, he could be gone,
i think he should get another year!
:)
I have never understood the strategy on renewal of his contract. We still have a reputation - despite having 2 coaches in 10 years. To deflect the media in this critical year - for the club, not just TW - a one year extension would be fair. If we miss out on the finals then pay him out, pre determine that figure to Wallace. A 200k payout so we manage the message and not the media to me is a small price to pay and avoids untold speculation. Collingwood do it with Malthouse and the Saints just did it with Ross Lyon.
-
to me, the question for Richmond in '09, is should Terry Wallace have his contract extended a year or two?
:)
yes or no?
if we don't make the finals, then he will be looking like he is gone,
if we make the finals, but only play in week 1 and lose, he could be gone,
i think he should get another year!
:)
he should get another year ONLY if we make the finals.
i dont care if we last one week then lose. I just want to make the finals FFS.
Simple equation. Finals= Contract extension for maybe another year at least
-
No way will he only get one year if we make the finals.
It will definitely be 2-3 years
-
That side has 12 young talls. Seemingly Wallace learning his lesson from his time at the Dogs.
No way will he only get one year if we make the finals.
It will definitely be 2-3 years
Agree. If the RFC only offered Plough a one year contract if we were to make the finals it would be a sign that we don't really think Wallace is the coach to take us to the next level and we're hedging our bets.
-
If he makes the finals in 2009 he gets a 2 year contract. If he misses the finals its all over imho.
-
The decision on Wallace will be made in July well before we know for certain that we are finals bound or how we actually perform in the finals
Cant leave it any longer if we want to get the next best coach on the market.
-
The decision on Wallace will be made in July well before we know for certain that we are finals bound or how we actually perform in the finals
Cant leave it any longer if we want to get the next best coach on the market.
And the bummer thing about that is that we have a hard start to the season, the first six games particularily.
If the draw was in reverse order rather than how it panned out, you would think TW's job would be practically guarenteed barring a disaster.
Oh well nothing brings out the best like incentive.
-
That team reaks of class and potental IMHO. The best thing is about that group is that the majority of them are already playing for the main team and not just developing in the 2s. Collingwood, Hawthorn etc have a young list but their weekly AFL teams are predominately older players 24+. The Tigers on the other hand have a very young AFL team topped up with some older 'stalwarts' like Richo. This is what TW was determined to do from the moment he arrived - bring through a group of talented players all through at the same time. I think he has succeeded.
Regardless of what you think of the man personally, TW has fufilled his end of the bargin and rebuilt our list to a point that we are now ready to challege the 8 with a team perdominately made up of players 23/24 years old or younger. This is the exciting fact - we have to get better overt he next few years.
If we have a bad year in 2009 due to injuries, the draw, luck etc then it will be an anomoly (sp?) rather than a true indication of the progress of the list.
I believe if TW is moved on the next coach will be given a dream run. They will seem like they are a supercoach but the truth will be they are reaping the rewards on TW and the recruiters hard work.
Therefore I think TW should be given another 2 years regardless of our performance this year. Yes the finals must be a goal but how can you make a decision on how he has gone and coaches unless you allow him to work with a team of 23 - 27 year olds? If he fails it that period then he deserves everything he gets but I don't think you can fairly judge TW on one bad year with a group of young, developing and unconsistent players can you??
Stripes
-
Hi everyone,
I have been reading this forum for a while now and i really enjoy the topics and the input from everyone, but have never actually writen anything, but reading this topic last night, made me think and i just cannot hold my tongue anymore. IMO TW should not get anymore time at our club if we do not make the finals in 09. Five years is more than enough time to get a side up and into finals. And as for that side that was picked, i think it may be a little premature to be congratulating TW for. It has
1. 7 recycled players that we have traded away trade picks for.
2. 13 players that have never even played a game for Richmond.
3. a number 1 draft pick (LIDS) that picked himself in that draft. (and a genuine superstar)
4. a number 8 draft pick (JON) that has played 9 games in three years.
5. a number 2 draft pick (Cotchin), that if we had not been cheated that year, he probably would not be at our club.
6. a number 4 draft pick (Tambling) that has not come on the way some of the others have in that draft.
I'm not trying to be negative but before i give TW a pat on the back for his recruiting just remember the only reason we have 8 first round draft picks and 2 or 3 second round draft picks in the last 4 years is because we have been so bad for so long.
Anyway i just hope we can make finals and put a smile on all our faces.
-
great 1st post and great post overall
-
5. a number 2 draft pick (Cotchin), that if we had not been cheated that year, he probably would not be at our club.
hi big tone and welcome to OER
On the above point I have to disagree, having listened to the recruiters on this topic I have no doubt we would have taken Cotchin over Kruezner (sp?) if we had the number 1 pick in 2007. I believe we rated Cotchin ahead of Kruezner
-
Hi WP,
It's very easy for these recruiters to say after the draft who they would have chosen, but at the time Kruz was without doubt
the outright favourite to go number 1 by most, if not all clubs. That fact that we so desperately needed a ruckmen to help Simo (like we still do) and the fact that we had struggled so badly when Simo was injured, i think that we would have had to have taken Kruz. Also i think in the backs of their minds they would have been thinking they didn't want to make the same mistake they had made in the '04 draft and taken a small on-baller over a big strong KKP/Ruck and the out and out favourite number 1 draft pick.
So that brings me to a question for you, IF Rich had have fallen through to us at pick 8, would we have taken him or still gone with Vickery to suit our needs??
Cheers
-
G'day bigtone. Well spoken and some very good arguments. Welcome to the board.
I think WP is referring to the meeting he attending before the draft that year. The club also had had Cotch down at the club, just like Vickery for that matter, and knew his strengths as a player and as a person well before the draft which was why they would have taken him over Kruezer regardless.
I can see your point regarding 'needs choices/decisions' regarding ruck options but the club rates Putt and Gus quite highly so Vickery was chosen this year as much for his forwardline potential as for insurance in case the other two don't make it. The club was quoted stating that you can usually get a quality ruckman with a later choice and that few rucks chosen early in the draft have become stars so if they had a choice over a potential star midfielder/KPP or a ruckman they would choose the first option. This is why Vickery was a clever choice because he filled both categories - KPP and ruck.
In regards to your belief that TW has not created a worthwhile list - you are not alone on this board. There are plenty of poster that share your view, some quite vocally ;) I can see your reasoning but I don't think the club should be that harsh or reactive. I believe the list is a strong one which continues to increase in depth and quality every year. This year for example we drafted for need and potential, and were able to top up with class which we have not had the luxury of doing for years.
The sheer amount of quality midfielders we have coming through is astounding. Our backling is class with players such as Rance, Raines, Hislop and even Post all creating pressure on places. Our forwardline is also filled with potential but still remains a work in progress. This is why players such as Vickery, Gourdis, Nahas etc will add pressure on Riewoldt, Hughes, Morton, Brown for places this year in the F50. By year's end the forwardline will be stabilised like our backline.
Our ruck options remain the most concerning but yet again there is now depth there. Yes they need to develop but we are preparing and planning for Simmonds eventual retirement which is good list management.
My question to you , besides the odd bad draft choice or trade which every club makes, how could our recruiters and TW have done a better job with our list?
Regardless big tone, great to have you posting.
Stripes
-
Also i think in the backs of their minds they would have been thinking they didn't want to make the same mistake they had made in the '04 draft and taken a small on-baller over a big strong KKP/Ruck and the out and out favourite number 1 draft pick.
Hi Big Tone,
As Stripes said welcome.
I dont subscribe to the 04 draft being a mistake theory. At the '04 draft time the drafting needs of us and the Hawks were different, we had no developing midfield while Hawthorn had a young talented emerging midfield. We also had Richo as a KPP forward and had drafted Simmo (although I dont know if that was a done deal before the national draft), we clearly needed the best available midfielders.
The RFC recruited on needs and in Lids case got best available as well IMO. As far as Im concerned Tambling could still be the better footballer, I will need to see the two Hawks 04 draftees perform at a high level for a number of years before I believe a judgement can be made on that, I also believe Tambo has to be allowed to develop before he can be judged fairly.
-
Hi WP,
It's very easy for these recruiters to say after the draft who they would have chosen, but at the time Kruz was without doubt
the outright favourite to go number 1 by most, if not all clubs. That fact that we so desperately needed a ruckmen to help Simo (like we still do) and the fact that we had struggled so badly when Simo was injured, i think that we would have had to have taken Kruz. Also i think in the backs of their minds they would have been thinking they didn't want to make the same mistake they had made in the '04 draft and taken a small on-baller over a big strong KKP/Ruck and the out and out favourite number 1 draft pick.
So that brings me to a question for you, IF Rich had have fallen through to us at pick 8, would we have taken him or still gone with Vickery to suit our needs??
Cheers
Says who? WCE would have taken Cotchin with #1. I don't see why we would not have either. He is at the club now so its a null point. Getting Kruzer would have not been the end of the world. I don't think its important the manner in which Cotch came to the club or situations if we had pick #1. Cotch was rated as a potential Gary Ablett / Judd like prospect. I doubt we would have overlooked him even if Kruz was still around.
The rucks stocks with Simmonds / Pattison and the developing Putt / Vickery / Graham / Browne now look solid.
If Rich is such a gem why did so many clubs over look him?
-
If Rich is such a gem why did so many clubs over look him?
Tell you what though the Bomber fans aren't happy that their club didn't pick up Rich though. However they're not in a position to know the full story on the recruiting decisions and to top it off they are not that bright anyway.
-
We were happy to overlook man-boy Hurn, and got JON instead ( :-\)
I don't see why would not have taken Vickery ahead of Rich if he were still around.
-
It's very easy for these recruiters to say after the draft who they would have chosen, but at the time Kruz was without doubt
the outright favourite to go number 1 by most, if not all clubs. That fact that we so desperately needed a ruckmen to help Simo (like we still do) and the fact that we had struggled so badly when Simo was injured, i think that we would have had to have taken Kruz.
I honestly believe they would have taken Cotchin with pick 1 if we had it. I remember sitting at the pre-draft night they had in 2007 and when they were speaking about the 3 top picks they kept refering to Cotchin as "the one"
So that brings me to a question for you, IF Rich had have fallen through to us at pick 8, would we have taken him or still gone with Vickery to suit our needs??
I think they would have still gone with Vickery, they have and had huge "raps" on him and I think they view him as better player. The one I think they would have gone for ahead of Vickery if he'd slipped through to pick 8 was Hammish Hartlett.
-
It's very easy for these recruiters to say after the draft who they would have chosen, but at the time Kruz was without doubt
the outright favourite to go number 1 by most, if not all clubs. That fact that we so desperately needed a ruckmen to help Simo (like we still do) and the fact that we had struggled so badly when Simo was injured, i think that we would have had to have taken Kruz.
I honestly believe they would have taken Cotchin with pick 1 if we had it. I remember sitting at the pre-draft night they had in 2007 and when they were speaking about the 3 top picks they kept refering to Cotchin as "the one"
So that brings me to a question for you, IF Rich had have fallen through to us at pick 8, would we have taken him or still gone with Vickery to suit our needs??
I think they would have still gone with Vickery, they have and had huge "raps" on him and I think they view him as better player. The one I think they would have gone for ahead of Vickery if he'd slipped through to pick 8 was Hammish Hartlett.
Who was the 3rd of the top 3?
Morton, I assume?
-
Who was the 3rd of the top 3?
Morton, I assume?
yep Cale Morton
-
Hi Stripes,
In regards to Cotch, fair enough and i'm so glad they got that right. He is an out and out superstar for mine and i just like the way he has gone about it since he has been at our club. Even the way he and a few others did that extra work in the off season shows this kid is the real deal and he know what it takes to become a very good player for us.
Now to answer your question, the only way you can judge the recruiters is on their draft selections, and as you said they don't always get it right and the lower the pick the harder it is to find good players. I understand all that. So the way they could have done a better job is by recruiting better players with the draft picks that didn't work.
And just remember us and Hawthorn were at the same stage when TW took over, he even said that he chose us to coach over Hawthorn because he thought we had the better list at the time. Now these were his words and nobody elses. So i think the draft decisions they have made compared to us has been a lot better over the time TW has been at Richmond.
Agree or disagree the proof is in the pudding.
-
Hey there C17,
With all due respect Chuck, blind freddy can see that Buddy Love not only is, and will be a far better player than Tambling and one of the greats of all time. I like Richie and I think he can be a valuable player for our club but if we had to choose again, I'm pretty sure we would do it differently. I know you said you would like time to be able to judge between the two, but as of now its pretty clear.
In regards to Lids, I was completely happy with taking him at #1 over Buddy.
Don't get me wrong, and I'm not trying to be negative, I'm only stating my opinion on this topic.
Cheers
-
Regarding Hawthorn and Richmonds rebuilding starting point I would ahve to disagree that we were at the same stage when TW took over. If TW did say that we had the better list over Hawthorn when he took over I feel it was merely an excuse to ease his old clubs disappointment for not securing him when he made his final club decision. Quite amusing in retrospect.
When TW took over Hawthorn was well into their rebuilding. They had already assembled a strong midfield unit of quality youth lead by their number one draft pick Hodge. Just as we did in 2007, they slipped back to the bottom of the ladder with their inexperienced list in 2004 and had the luxury of being able to select based on need/talent with the knowledge their midfield stocks were already excellent.
In the 2004 draft we needed to build our midfield from the ground up just as Hawthorn had done 3 years earlier. We now have excellent midfield prospects, just as they did, and have used the last few drafts to fills needs as well as to find talent. This years draft was clear indicator of this with the choice of a Ruckman/KPP, crumbers, forward/defender untility and two mature (but still young) in and under types.
We would never have drafted Cousins if we had not already covered all areas across the ground for the future. Some of these choices may not develop but we have given ourselves every chance to succeed by ticking all the boxes.
So I have to disagree with your statement about the development of Hawthorns and Richmonds lists. They are more advanced than ours by 3/4+ years at the least, just as Carlton is 2 years behind us. Hawthorn just lucked out with a few choices such as Buddy who every team thought had a terrible attitude, possible drug issues and was inconsistent.
Even Hawthorn chose Roughhead before him so sometimes you just luck out and advances your team further than you possible expected. Now if we can just luck out with a few of our speculative choices i think this would only be fair.... :pray
Stripes
-
Hey there C17,
With all due respect Chuck, blind freddy can see that Buddy Love not only is, and will be a far better player than Tambling and one of the greats of all time.
Cheers
Depends on whether he can continue to behave himself.
:cheers
-
Hey there C17,
With all due respect Chuck, blind freddy can see that Buddy Love not only is, and will be a far better player than Tambling and one of the greats of all time.
We shall see.
I think Hawthorn will slip back a tad next season too.
-
Hey there C17,
With all due respect Chuck, blind freddy can see that Buddy Love not only is, and will be a far better player than Tambling and one of the greats of all time.
Cheers
Depends on whether he can continue to behave himself.
:cheers
He definitely isn't doing that
Shame there isn't a hotline you can call with info
-
He definitely isn't doing that
Shame there isn't a hotline you can call with info
Yes that persistent rumour is doing the rounds again isnt it
-
Hey there C17,
With all due respect Chuck, blind freddy can see that Buddy Love not only is, and will be a far better player than Tambling and one of the greats of all time. I like Richie and I think he can be a valuable player for our club but if we had to choose again, I'm pretty sure we would do it differently. I know you said you would like time to be able to judge between the two, but as of now its pretty clear.
In regards to Lids, I was completely happy with taking him at #1 over Buddy.
Don't get me wrong, and I'm not trying to be negative, I'm only stating my opinion on this topic.
Cheers
Cant disagree with any of that big tone, Buddy has the runs on the board over Tambling no question. I just think that there is a chance Buddy could self destruct and a very good chance that Tambling as he matures football and body wise could become a very good footballer.
I didn't know if you were referring to the whole 04 draft as a mistake but as you said Lids was the right choice so it is all good there.
-
And just remember us and Hawthorn were at the same stage when TW took over....
You sooooooo lost me there.
-
Regarding Hawthorn and Richmonds rebuilding starting point I would ahve to disagree that we were at the same stage when TW took over. If TW did say that we had the better list over Hawthorn when he took over I feel it was merely an excuse to ease his old clubs disappointment for not securing him when he made his final club decision. Quite amusing in retrospect.
When TW took over Hawthorn was well into their rebuilding. They had already assembled a strong midfield unit of quality youth lead by their number one draft pick Hodge. Just as we did in 2007, they slipped back to the bottom of the ladder with their inexperienced list in 2004 and had the luxury of being able to select based on need/talent with the knowledge their midfield stocks were already excellent.
In the 2004 draft we needed to build our midfield from the ground up just as Hawthorn had done 3 years earlier. We now have excellent midfield prospects, just as they did, and have used the last few drafts to fills needs as well as to find talent. This years draft was clear indicator of this with the choice of a Ruckman/KPP, crumbers, forward/defender untility and two mature (but still young) in and under types.
We would never have drafted Cousins if we had not already covered all areas across the ground for the future. Some of these choices may not develop but we have given ourselves every chance to succeed by ticking all the boxes.
So I have to disagree with your statement about the development of Hawthorns and Richmonds lists. They are more advanced than ours by 3/4+ years at the least, just as Carlton is 2 years behind us. Hawthorn just lucked out with a few choices such as Buddy who every team thought had a terrible attitude, possible drug issues and was inconsistent.
Even Hawthorn chose Roughhead before him so sometimes you just luck out and advances your team further than you possible expected. Now if we can just luck out with a few of our speculative choices i think this would only be fair.... :pray
Stripes
Well said. People have fallen for the rewritten version of history Hawthorn has spruiked the past couple of years. It's not to say they aren't well managed because they are under Kennett and co. and they are well resourced in terms of money and state of the art facilities at Waverley but I just don't fall for this "grand plan" they claim they were on all along since 2001. Who can forget Schwab claiming preseason they were going for the flag in 2004. Pelchen didn't join the Hawks from Port until after the 2004 draft so all his analysis of past premiership teams and player types was done after the Hawks had already recruited the vast majority of the team that would play in their premiership. Then there's the garbage of them wanting to go tall with their first two picks in the 2004 draft. If they wanted Buddy they not only would have chosen him over Roughead first but they also wouldn't have hesitated and called for extra time before selecting Franklin. In the end they got it right big time but at the time they wanted Roughead and Tambling and were expecting us to go for a tall (Buddy) after picking up a mid in Lids. Wallace looks a fool now claiming at the time we got the best two players in the 2004 draft :-\ but IMO that was said as much to get supporters back after the disaster of the Spud's last 3 years of boring footy and to help promote a club that had a $2 million black hole. Every year we hear coaches and recruiters pumping up their draft selections on draft day.
-
Fair enough mightytiges,
i'm not really sure how much of that is true but lets just agree, and as i said in my original post, that we are happy with our first pick with Lids in 2004 but whatever picks we had or Hawthorn had we still had the chance to pick up Buddy with our number 4 pick.
Lets forget about Hawthorn for a minute and take a look at the side i have chosen.
Thursfield Moore Raines
Newman McGuane Jackson
Polo Tuck Tambling
Johnson Schulz Bowden
Brown Richardson Coughlan
Rucks Simmonds/Deledio/Foley
Pretty good side, and a side that could quite easily run out anytime in 2009.
What this side is, is a list of players that was, either on our list, or drafted in the year TW took over. (players drafted, traded or rookied in the 2004 draft picked by Spuds recruiters considering they would have been doing there jobs and finding players during the 2004 home and awy season)
I hope that makes sense?
So just how bad was our list when TW took over? And with the players that have been on our list since then, should TW have done a better job so far?
-
So just how bad was our list when TW took over? And with the players that have been on our list since then, should TW have done a better job so far?
Our list was a mess.
For the sake of accuracy, TW never said he chose Richmond over Hawthorn because he thought we had the better list at the time. He said he thought Hawthorn had a better chance of success in the short term but he thought we had better kids. He misjudged how good the Hawthorn kids were, as they are the foundation of the current premiership side.
The team you have posted looks pretty good. Scratch the surface and 9 of the 18 have had serious long-term injuries during Wallace's time (Brown, Coughlan, Thursfield, Schulz, Raines), have only just cemented a place in the side in 2008 (Moore & McGuane) or are still to cement a spot (Jackson & Polo).
I haven't counted Simmonds but he was also badly injured in 2007 and hampered for the last half of 2008.
4 years equals 88 games. Only 3 of those 9 players have played 50%.
Raines - 52
Brown - 49
Schulz - 46
I don't think it's fair to judge Wallace on the last 4 rebuilding years. Not from a results point of view.
He got 5 years to make his mark. I reckon 2009 is the year to start judging.
-
Thursfield Moore Raines
Newman McGuane Jackson
Polo Tuck Tambling
Johnson Schulz Bowden
Brown Richardson Coughlan
Rucks Simmonds/Deledio/Foley
Pretty good side, and a side that could quite easily run out anytime in 2009.
What this side is, is a list of players that was, either on our list, or drafted in the year TW took over. (players drafted, traded or rookied in the 2004 draft picked by Spuds recruiters considering they would have been doing there jobs and finding players during the 2004 home and awy season)
I hope that makes sense?
So just how bad was our list when TW took over? And with the players that have been on our list since then, should TW have done a better job so far?
Can't agree with this BT. This is not a pretty good side - it lacks structure, age-spread and plain old ability. The midfield is not nearly strong enough to compete with the top sides - Tuck, Foley, Deledio and Johnson are the only current regular competitive midfielders and a very similar midfield to this got smashed on a weekly basis during 2007. Even allowing for the natural development since then there are nowhere near enough mids. Tambling and Jackson still only play bit roles and need to step up (an unknown) in order to add to this area. Polo has done little since his debut to suggest he will make it as more than a fill-in and if Coughlan plays 1 game this year it will be a bonus. The forward line would have every opposition coach salivating at the thought of playing this team - there are zero 'pressure on the defender' types, collectively it would have the pace of the Titanic in low gear, Richo back to full forward brings back all the inherent weaknesses in structure we carried for so many years and Schulz at CHF is a very hit and miss option (more miss then hit history shows so far). The backline is fair but Raines has been exploited in the past and is still very much an unknown regarding a long term or integral role, and Jackson is not proven as a defender at all (although he has shown some skill at being a shutdown/tagging mid).
All in all, I think you have demonstrated the very thing that Frawley brought to the table - lack of forethought and foresight that left our main list horribly exposed for future growth and development. Really, this group of players should now be the core, the strength, of our current team yet nearly half of them are either too old, too inconsistent or just not a regular senior 18 type. And given the historical performance of Frawley's recruiting team, I think you may under-estimate the input of Wallace to the recruiting of 2004. A new coach given a 5 year term to turn around the league basket case would not have relied on much of his predecessor's information - he would have been picking exactly (within the limits of available picks) who he wanted with a view to the future. I am fairly confident that his only counsel for this draft would have been Miller, notwithstanding the plethora of information available from many, many external sources.
Conversely, I think that Wallace's recruiting and list development has been as good as it could have given the size and scope of the initial task. He has filled the deficiencies in our structure, cleared out the deadwood and kept the inherited players that were worth keeping. Today, our list is balanced though young and is positioned for an honest tilt at finals and success in the coming years, regardless of whether it is Wallace or an incumbent that takes it to the next level. I think the biggest mistake many commentators and supporters make is underestimating how bad the 2004 list was and how long it would take to correct it. Thankfully, we removed the cancer from the board at the same time so that Wallace was blessed with stability and support that was so essential during the darkest days (see 2007 - not a murmur of discontent or dissatisfaction from anyone except the media jackals and Chicken Little supporters). Only history will fairly judge the impact and performance of Wallace and his team but I for one am very comfortable with the job they have done and continue to do.
-
Hey Fishfinger,
i read your post with a husky voice and guess who i sounded like- TW.
To many stats, ages and excuses for me.
It's time to put some runs on the board or hand your bat over to somebody that can bat!
Enjoy your lunch!
-
Hello to you Smokey58,
Like i said to Fishfingers, to many excuses and not enough results so far!
TW has one more year to prove all us 'chichen little supporters' wrong and i truely hope he does. I only hope he stops talking about time frames for success, or poeple ages, or old lists and takes responsibilities for the team and there poor performances.
I just hope you don't put up with mediocrity for to long and you're not one of the TW bashes when his time is up just like you are with Spud.
:clapping
-
If you look at the games played up to the end of 2004 you can see the Hawks had already got 30-50 games into their then new core before Clarkson arrived. Oddly enough despite claims otherwise they in hindsight rebuilt their midfield first then added the talls.
1992 draft: Richo (194)
1995: Bowden (170)
1999: -
2000: Pettifer (37), Coughlan (49), Newman (54)
2001: -
2002: Schulz (21), Moore (9), Johnson (143)
2003: Jackson (6), Tuck (3), Raines (1), Foley# (-), Brown (157)
2004: Deledio, Tambling, Pattison, Polo, McGuane, Thursfield#, Simmonds (104)
1992: Crawford (232)
1999: Clarke (47), Bateman (42)
2000: Williams (33)
2001: Hodge (45), Ladson (14), Brown (40), Mitchell (50)
2002: Boyle (-), Sewell (6), Osborne (39), Campbell (31)
1997/2003: Croad (143)
2004: Roughead, Franklin, Lewis, Murphy, Taylor, Young#
# - rookie listed in 2005
-
And just remember us and Hawthorn were at the same stage when TW took over, he even said that he chose us to coach over Hawthorn because he thought we had the better list at the time. Now these were his words and nobody elses.
You must have been using that husky voice there pretending to be TW while you were re-writing history to suit your opinion because he didn't say that.
They're your words, not his.
Enjoyed my lunch, thanks. :)
-
Hello to you Smokey58,
Like i said to Fishfingers, to many excuses and not enough results so far!
TW has one more year to prove all us 'chichen little supporters' wrong and i truely hope he does. I only hope he stops talking about time frames for success, or poeple ages, or old lists and takes responsibilities for the team and there poor performances.
Hi to you too BT, good to have a new face posting.
Here's the rub - Wallace doesn't have to prove anything - he has already done the bulk of the work he was commissioned to do - whether or not he is retained or replaced, point is the team (and club in general) will benefit greatly from his work thus far. Personally I don't give two hoots whether he is the man going forward or not - I'm just looking at it entirely from an ROI perspective and he has delivered what was asked of him - not right or fair to expect more than that.
I just hope you don't put up with mediocrity for to long and you're not one of the TW bashes when his time is up just like you are with Spud.
No need to hope - if you take the time to get acquainted with what fellow posters stand for then you can allay many of your fears. I was an extremely vocal Casey and Frawley opponent for many years because of the fundamental flaws I saw in their direction and performance - just like I will defend Wallace for the job he has already done. Save the emotion for the game - removing it from your analytical efforts will enable you to see things in a much more realistic light. Wallace is on the right track with the current support of the board, regardless of who ends up as the eventual messiah.