One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: one-eyed on May 13, 2010, 05:59:17 AM
-
No light at end of tunnel for inept Richmond
JAKE NIALL
May 13, 2010
Draft concessions may be the only way to get the Tigers back on track.
THERE is zero chance that the AFL commission will change the order of the draft, this year or next, to give Richmond the kind of picks that such an inept team deserves.
Those draft picks that have been allocated to the Gold Coast and Greater Western Sydney - selections 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 and 15 in the 2010 and 2011 drafts - are set in concrete. They are part of the new clubs' licensing agreement to enter the competition. These picks are part of their DNA.
So, the Tigers will get pick No. 4 - which is really equivalent to pick No. 6 or 7 due to the 17-year-olds already taken - even if they don't win a game, and then a couple of crappy picks in the twenties.
That Richmond is getting shafted in the next two national drafts is well known - the Tiger fans are well aware of it, though oddly, many of them are so conditioned to doom and defeat, they have accepted this travesty. They didn't get pick No. 1 in 2007 when they finished bottom, either (it went to Carlton).
What few of them would know, however, is that the Tigers also are getting rough justice in the pre-season draft for uncontracted players, in both 2010 and 2011.
The Tigers are the worst team of recent times, in a competition that is supposedly built on competitive balance, and yet they will not receive anything like the normal rewards for incompetence. There's no Scully or Trengove on the immediate horizon.
In addition to early national draft picks, the bottom team is normally entitled to have first crack at any out-of-contract player in the pre-season draft and can use the PSD to trade on favourable terms.
The poor Tigers, though, have missed the uncontracted boat, too, this year. Gold Coast is in the boat. They're in the water.
The Gold Coast has the right to sign one uncontracted player from each of the 16 clubs this year. But it will not sign up anything like that number. The club has indicated that it doesn't want more than eight or nine out-of-contract players from other clubs.
The new team, however, has an additional safety net that would allow it to get more uncontracted players should it want them, or in the event that a gun player suddenly becomes available (unable to come to terms with club etc).
If the Gold Coast signs eight players, it could, theoretically, then fill its quota of 16 by taking eight players consecutively in the PSD. In practice, this means it can pick as many uncontracted players as it desires, and it can grab anyone who falls out of the tree. It also makes it extremely difficult for Richmond, as the bottom team, to snare a decent out-of-contract player via that traditional PSD path. The same system applies to GWS in 2011.
Since this column raised the issue of Richmond's raw deal and argued that it should receive some compensation for being collateral damage for expansion, debate has raged about whether the Tigers should get some respite. ''Let them suffer'' has been the response of many vitriolic opposition fans, who have pointed out - correctly - that Richmond's woes are entirely of its own making.
Andrew Demetriou has expressed concern about the Tigers' plight, but last week told The Age it was ''unlikely'' that they would receive some kind of compensation.
Demetriou, at least, hasn't been categoric. By the middle of next year, if the Tigers remain mired at the bottom, after a 1-21 season with a percentage of 50, then the commission, surely, would give consideration to the Richmond question.
The Tigers, whose chief executive Brendon Gale has talked down the idea of seeking draft help, will be better placed to make a case next year, when a priority pick may be imminent. It cannot get a No. 1-3 draft pick, but there is no reason why it should not receive the right to the best 16 or 17-year-old, or be allowed to ''bank'' its priority pick and use it 12 months later when the draft is normalised, as clubs can when they lose uncontracted players to Gold Coast.
Richmond, in any case, wouldn't be asking or getting anything ''special''. What it ought to request is the right to be treated like all the other hopeless bottom teams.
The argument that the Tigers dug their own grave with past recruiting blunders is irrelevant. The AFL's system doesn't take into account what a club has done.
Every team that bottoms out has either stuffed up badly, or tanked. Richmond, at least, hasn't done the latter.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/no-light-at-end-of-tunnel-for-inept-richmond-20100512-uy1t.html
-
To say that you can't get a good draft pick in the 20s is rubbish. The key to the club's revival is good recruiting, patience and putting systems in place that ensure the deveopment of its players. Do not need hand outs.
-
To say that you can't get a good draft pick in the 20s is rubbish. The key to the club's revival is good recruiting, patience and putting systems in place that ensure the deveopment of its players. Do not need hand outs.
true, but I'm sure we'd be gratefully accepting of an extra pick or 2 in the 1st round
-
Jake Niall really is on the wagon about this and how much we need extra help to get out of the gutter.
It seems Niall really feels sorry for a team that simply sucks but won't get the reward instead of the previous 5 years where teams have tanked (Carlton, Melbourne) and got prime rewards.
-
There's a bit of a contradiction here too. On one hand he says the Tigers plight is ENTIRELY of its' own making. Then he concedes that the AFL robbed us of the top pick in 2007.
So yes, we did make some huge blunders with our recruiting. But as much as anything we are also where we are for refusing to tank. Great little system the AFL has put in place.....
-
I'd have no problem accepting Pick 1 in 2012 in addition to our other picks if we have 4 wins or less both this year and next year
It would only be fair to make up what we missed out on in 2010-11
-
If we cant get an extra pick we should be able to sign a 16/17 year old 1 year ahead of time.
That would be the same as a top 5 pick in 2012.
-
I know it won't be a popular idea, but hey, we might even still be that bad that we can't help it anyway. We should tank 2011 and 2012. Get picks 4 and 6 in 2011 and 1 and 2 in 2012.
-
we just need to get over it, picks 4&6 next year is more than adequate and just about equal to picks 1&2 imo. and you can certainly find some good talents in the 20's, if we're smart we'd trade players like Mcguane and Tambling who wouldnt hurt us if they left for an extra few 20's draft picks.
-
we deserve everything we get. It was all out undoing and Gale is right we dont want help.
Because of past administration we screwed up our own chances at getting pick 1 so im sorry stuff it beacuse of our idiotic ways we should accept whatever comes our way.
IF WE HAD TANKED PROPERLY INSTEAD OF JUMPING AROUND LIKE FOOLS E.G WHEN MCLOVIN KICKED THAT GOAL, THIS WOULD SO BE A NON ISSUE.
the fault should be directed at idiots like Criag Cameron who couldnt even get tanking right. The only club in the AFL who thinks a win against dees and Bombers is worth more than a Scully or Trengrove. :banghead :banghead
-
the fault should be directed at idiots like Criag Cameron who couldnt even get tanking right. The only club in the AFL who thinks a win against dees and Bombers is worth more than a Scully or Trengrove. :banghead :banghead
A couple of years ago when I suggested when it was no longer possible to make the eight that that's the direction we should take but I was criticised immensely. I still stand by that because it's a system that was designed to be rorted, and no, it doesn't make it right if we do it, but it would be wrong and pretty darn dumb if we didn't. I guess, we're just plain dumb :banghead
-
IF WE HAD TANKED PROPERLY INSTEAD OF JUMPING AROUND LIKE FOOLS E.G WHEN MCLOVIN KICKED THAT GOAL, THIS WOULD SO BE A NON ISSUE.
the fault should be directed at idiots like Criag Cameron who couldnt even get tanking right. The only club in the AFL who thinks a win against dees and Bombers is worth more than a Scully or Trengrove. :banghead :banghead
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't McMahon cost us pick 18 or so?
The pick 1 priority pick required two years of poor results which is why Melbourne were eligible and we weren't
-
McMAHON DIDN'T COST US ANYTHING
The only thing McMahon did was allow Melbourne to get Pick 1 & 2
We lost our priority pick when we beat Essendon
-
McMAHON DIDN'T COST US ANYTHING
The only thing McMahon did was allow Melbourne to get Pick 1 & 2
We lost our priority pick when we beat Essendon
Yep. And then we would had to have made a choice between Martin and either of Scully or Trengrove - whoever Melbourne didn't want. Made no difference to us, we still didn't get an extra pick, just meant we might not have taken Martin.
-
yes but it meant we wouldnt be getting picks 4&6 this season, not to mention that pick 18 last season could have netted us bastinac too. I'm sorry but it was a big deal and amazingly stupid to win games against the likes of melbourne & essendon
-
yes but it meant we wouldnt be getting picks 4&6 this season, not to mention that pick 18 last season could have netted us bastinac too. I'm sorry but it was a big deal and amazingly stupid to win games against the likes of melbourne & essendon
Just responding to the McMahon comment TM, not the issue of tanking. McMahon's kick did not cost us anything regarding picks yet regularly gets trotted out as the blame piece. My thoughts on tanking are well known and well debated on here, and most certainly don't need me to rehash them! ;)
-
yes but it meant we wouldnt be getting picks 4&6 this season, not to mention that pick 18 last season could have netted us bastinac too. I'm sorry but it was a big deal and amazingly stupid to win games against the likes of melbourne & essendon
Just responding to the McMahon comment TM, not the issue of tanking. McMahon's kick did not cost us anything regarding picks yet regularly gets trotted out as the blame piece. My thoughts on tanking are well known and well debated on here, and most certainly don't need me to rehash them! ;)
no prob smokey but I would argue that it did in fact directly cost us picks, pick 18 last season and pick 6 this season.
-
Just responding to the McMahon comment TM, not the issue of tanking. McMahon's kick did not cost us anything regarding picks yet regularly gets trotted out as the blame piece. My thoughts on tanking are well known and well debated on here, and most certainly don't need me to rehash them! ;)
no prob smokey but I would argue that it did in fact directly cost us picks, pick 18 last season and pick 6 this season.
Difference between 18 and 19 is not an argument - it's a nitpick! ;D I'm certain we still would have taken Griffiths.
How did it cost us pick 6 this season?
-
Just responding to the McMahon comment TM, not the issue of tanking. McMahon's kick did not cost us anything regarding picks yet regularly gets trotted out as the blame piece. My thoughts on tanking are well known and well debated on here, and most certainly don't need me to rehash them! ;)
no prob smokey but I would argue that it did in fact directly cost us picks, pick 18 last season and pick 6 this season.
Difference between 18 and 19 is not an argument - it's a nitpick! ;D I'm certain we still would have taken Griffiths.
How did it cost us pick 6 this season?
Unless Im mistaken it cost us pick 18 as well as pick 19 for taking us over tthe 4.5 wins cutoff for a PP. If im wrong i apologise in advance :lol
-
Just responding to the McMahon comment TM, not the issue of tanking. McMahon's kick did not cost us anything regarding picks yet regularly gets trotted out as the blame piece. My thoughts on tanking are well known and well debated on here, and most certainly don't need me to rehash them! ;)
no prob smokey but I would argue that it did in fact directly cost us picks, pick 18 last season and pick 6 this season.
Difference between 18 and 19 is not an argument - it's a nitpick! ;D I'm certain we still would have taken Griffiths.
How did it cost us pick 6 this season?
Unless Im mistaken it cost us pick 18 as well as pick 19 for taking us over tthe 4.5 wins cutoff for a PP. If im wrong i apologise in advance :lol
I think the cutoff is 4 games or less so we were screwed when we beat Essendon - McMahon's kick against Melbourne had nothing to do with it. But, like you, I'm happy to apologize in advance if I'm wrong. :thumbsup
-
McMAHON DIDN'T COST US ANYTHING
The only thing McMahon did was allow Melbourne to get Pick 1 & 2
We lost our priority pick when we beat Essendon
Yep. And then we would had to have made a choice between Martin and either of Scully or Trengrove - whoever Melbourne didn't want. Made no difference to us, we still didn't get an extra pick, just meant we might not have taken Martin.
Interesting thing about this while there is a chance Scully and Trengrove will be better players I am not sure if the the RFC would have been better to choose either of them. We badly need players ready in size and ability to step into a struggling side and hold their own, I think Martin is the player that most fits this bill.
-
I find it annoying this view of people that due to the concessions and our state we are destined to be on the bottom for years.
I think they are making the mistake of linking how bad we are now to our ability to be at least competitive in 2-3 years time..
Hopefully the club doesn't screw it up and in 2-3 years time we start to prove a lot of people wrong..
-
Just responding to the McMahon comment TM, not the issue of tanking. McMahon's kick did not cost us anything regarding picks yet regularly gets trotted out as the blame piece. My thoughts on tanking are well known and well debated on here, and most certainly don't need me to rehash them! ;)
no prob smokey but I would argue that it did in fact directly cost us picks, pick 18 last season and pick 6 this season.
Difference between 18 and 19 is not an argument - it's a nitpick! ;D I'm certain we still would have taken Griffiths.
How did it cost us pick 6 this season?
Unless Im mistaken it cost us pick 18 as well as pick 19 for taking us over tthe 4.5 wins cutoff for a PP. If im wrong i apologise in advance :lol
I think the cutoff is 4 games or less so we were screwed when we beat Essendon - McMahon's kick against Melbourne had nothing to do with it. But, like you, I'm happy to apologize in advance if I'm wrong. :thumbsup
Correct, we lost our priority pick in the win against Essendon, not Melbourne
-
though oddly, many of them are so conditioned to doom and defeat, they have accepted this travesty. .
That's all u weak pricks on here who cop it week in,week out and point the finger at others.
Well done - you made the paper!! :thumbsup
-
I'd have no problem accepting Pick 1 in 2012 in addition to our other picks if we have 4 wins or less both this year and next year
It would only be fair to make up what we missed out on in 2010-11
Great minds think alike mate. I was going to make a similar point - I don't reckon there's anything wrong with retrospective redistribution/compensation for priority picks that would have taken place in a non-compromised draft.
-
though oddly, many of them are so conditioned to doom and defeat, they have accepted this travesty. .
That's all u weak pricks on here who cop it week in,week out and point the finger at others.
Well done - you made the paper!! :thumbsup
We're famous :bow
I can't stand it when we lose posters target the coaches or our developing players like a few on field decision would make a $#%^& difference this year! We are where we are because of never taking our medicine, always demanding immediate success as a supporter base, taking shortcuts with our list development and never investing in development and recruiting. We have been embarrassing incompetent! :banghead
But rather than point the finger at past administrators or, even worse, current ones, lets learn from our mistakes and support our own during one of the toughest time we will have ever face as an organisation. If the club does not hold true to its word and take no shortcuts this time then we will continue to be infinitely the worst club in the league.
Solutions and work is what we need from everyone not malcontents!!! :nopity :gotigers :pray
Stripes
-
solutions often come from malcontent :)
-
just win 4 matches!
:)
-
though oddly, many of them are so conditioned to doom and defeat, they have accepted this travesty. .
That's all u weak pricks on here who cop it week in,week out and point the finger at others.
Well done - you made the paper!! :thumbsup
lol stuff you pOX :cheers
-
solutions often come from malcontent :)
Well, there's been plenty of malcontent at Richmond in the last 1/4 of a century, but FA solutions
-
solutions often come from malcontent :)
Well, there's been plenty of malcontent at Richmond in the last 1/4 of a century, but FA solutions
Al , i just noticed your "custom title"- Hilarious. :ROTFL
Its inspired me to do the same :thumbsup
-
;D
-
we just need to get over it, picks 4&6 next year is more than adequate and just about equal to picks 1&2 imo.
About the dumbest thing I've ever seen written on this web site, and that's saying something.
-
sheesh winning meaningless games every yr with below standard players is what hurt. people arguing weather it was the mel game or the ess game that cost us. does it matter. we were playing a shedload of players who were not going to be part of our long term and proceeded to win games that cost us valuable draft picks. this was as plain as the nose on your face.by taking kids and playing them would have meant a proper bottoming out much like we are doing now.
if we had played kids as a priority since the end of 06 and bit the bullet and resigned ourselves to few wins for 3 or so yrs the picks available to us thru pps would read something like this.
8 26 42 58 63. i say the end of 06 because wallace wanted a couple of seasons to see if he could make finals with the players he had. at the end of 06 we should have been in full on tank mode.its also worth noting if we had gone full on youth and started tanking we had older players who had some value which would have enabled us to trade into picks.
07 we needed to utilise 2 18 19 35 51 67 83 and psd 1 on a quality player or kid. thats 8 plus rookies we could have easily turned over 10 or 12 some of us were calling for this.
08 our picks should have gone 1 4 20 36 52 68 84. psd 1. plus rookies.
09 most likely would have still netted a pp it would have gone 1 3 19 35 51 67 71 plus psd 1 plus rookies.
-
we just need to get over it, picks 4&6 next year is more than adequate and just about equal to picks 1&2 imo.
About the dumbest thing I've ever seen written on this web site, and that's saying something.
Really and the difference between Trengove Scully Martin and Morabito is what? I don't think either club has missed out on quality this season based on those players. Shame that Dustin is in a side that has not won a game but that is not his fault but other than that I think if we had either of the other 3 we would still be happy with the selection and optimistic about their future with us. I'm with TM on this. Surely your assessment is alot dumber than the one you frantically chose to lambast. :help
-
we just need to get over it, picks 4&6 next year is more than adequate and just about equal to picks 1&2 imo.
About the dumbest thing I've ever seen written on this web site, and that's saying something.
:lol
yep big difference between say a franklin at 5 and lids/roughead/griffen hey? or big difference between pendles at 5 and murphy at 1? or selwood at 7 and gibbs? or rich/ziebell and watts? :shh
peanut ::)
-
2021 the year of the Tiger! :gotigers :cheers :birthday :pray