One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: mightytiges on July 26, 2010, 04:29:31 AM
-
Some "good" results over the weekend for this year's draft with the Bombers, Port and Dees all winning. With our low percentage we're effectively now two games off 13th spot and cemented in the bottom 3 which equates to a top 8 pick at the worst. Only 5 more weeks for Dimma and co. to give FJ and the recruiting staff the best chance to have another clean out and add more and better talent to our list :pray.
% Pts
9. North 86 32
10. Adel 92 28
11. Melb 94 26
12. Ess 84 24
13. Port 80 24
14. Bris 79 20
15. Rich 71 20
16. WCE 78 16
ps. I hope North enjoy waiting until pick 17 which in a normal draft would mean no first round pick despite finishing ninth and no finals. Eek!
-
There is a lot of Richmond 2005 about this years Kangaroos. They'll most likely trade that pick for a "mature" body that will give them the midfield depth to play finals. I look forward to it blowing up in their face.
-
Full marks to the Lions as well what a bunch of losers that have now mortgaged there future
-
Some "good" results over the weekend for this year's draft with the Bombers, Port and Dees all winning. With our low percentage we're effectively now two games off 13th spot and cemented in the bottom 3 which equates to a top 8 pick at the worst. Only 5 more weeks for Dimma and co. to give FJ and the recruiting staff the best chance to have another clean out and add more and better talent to our list :pray.
% Pts
9. North 86 32
10. Adel 92 28
11. Melb 94 26
12. Ess 84 24
13. Port 80 24
14. Bris 79 20
15. Rich 71 20
16. WCE 78 16
ps. I hope North enjoy waiting until pick 17 which in a normal draft would mean no first round pick despite finishing ninth and no finals. Eek!
I can't believe this. You're actually willing us to fail, and finish bottom. If this is what sport has come to, I don't want to be a part of it. Honestly MT, didn't you enjoy that 5-6 week golden run, when we were knocking off giants, believing we could, and feeling like anything was possible?
Didn't you get caught up in the euphoria? Or were you too busy worrying whether it would mean that we'd get pick 5 or 6 instead of 4 in a compromised draft? Were you relieved when we blew the chance against Nth to climb up to 11th? I was disgusted that instead we remained anchored to 15th, with the Eagles creeping a game closer to relegating us once more to the humiliation of another wooden spoon.
But then, I forgot that the aim of sport is all about losing these days.
If staying down for years to collect draft picks is the answer to success, then how come Collingwood were able to demolish us so comprehensively without ever finishing low enough to secure high draft picks?
Answer: They made do with the picks they've been given, and built a side on belief. Now I have to go and shower in liquid nitrogen. I feel so dirty after complimenting that SCUM.
-
Pies spend a lot more on development than any other clubs. I think i once heard they have 1 development coach per 3 players or something ridiclous like that.
We have a long way to go. Wouldnt you love to have another Dustin Martin in our team or would you rather beat Port in the last round. You have got to be joking, who gives a stuff about the result this year id rather give our club the best chance at selecting a gun kid for the years to come.
Do you remember those games we won last year and the one before. Meaningless wins they were and did nothing for the morale of our club.
beating top end clubs like the Pies and saints does mean something and i am all for beating them but the lower end clubs when they are resting half their side does nothing for our club this year.
-
I am chopping and changing, when we starting winning I was all for winning as many as possible.
Now with a couple of heavy losses I realise that we still need the best pick possible.
-
Some "good" results over the weekend for this year's draft with the Bombers, Port and Dees all winning. With our low percentage we're effectively now two games off 13th spot and cemented in the bottom 3 which equates to a top 8 pick at the worst. Only 5 more weeks for Dimma and co. to give FJ and the recruiting staff the best chance to have another clean out and add more and better talent to our list :pray.
% Pts
9. North 86 32
10. Adel 92 28
11. Melb 94 26
12. Ess 84 24
13. Port 80 24
14. Bris 79 20
15. Rich 71 20
16. WCE 78 16
ps. I hope North enjoy waiting until pick 17 which in a normal draft would mean no first round pick despite finishing ninth and no finals. Eek!
I can't believe this. You're actually willing us to fail, and finish bottom. If this is what sport has come to, I don't want to be a part of it. Honestly MT, didn't you enjoy that 5-6 week golden run, when we were knocking off giants, believing we could, and feeling like anything was possible?
Didn't you get caught up in the euphoria? Or were you too busy worrying whether it would mean that we'd get pick 5 or 6 instead of 4 in a compromised draft? Were you relieved when we blew the chance against Nth to climb up to 11th? I was disgusted that instead we remained anchored to 15th, with the Eagles creeping a game closer to relegating us once more to the humiliation of another wooden spoon.
But then, I forgot that the aim of sport is all about losing these days.
If staying down for years to collect draft picks is the answer to success, then how come Collingwood were able to demolish us so comprehensively without ever finishing low enough to secure high draft picks?
Answer: They made do with the picks they've been given, and built a side on belief. Now I have to go and shower in liquid nitrogen. I feel so dirty after complimenting that SCUM.
Factually incorrect - how do you think they got Thomas and Pendlebury? Yep - They tanked!
-
I think we'll win one more for the season port in the final round.
-
Factually incorrect - how do you think they got Thomas and Pendlebury? Yep - They tanked!
I don't know the exact details of their draft picks, I really don't follow anyone but us all that closely. But as far as I remember, they haven't finished outside the eight for between 5-10 years (due in part to the dream draw the AFL gifts them every year). So how could they have tanked to get John Thomas and Farkleberry?
Seems to me, the only way they could possibly get amongst high end draft picks would be to trade off rubbish players to lower clubs stupid enough to swap away their picks.
-
Cue is almost definately in the rack for 2010. You could see it in the performance on Saturday.
Jack Darling is the player I would want to come on board, big body can play anywhere !!
I think we will finish bottom now as WC have a couple of winnable games and we probably only have one.
I am all for not winning the spoon and the top 10 looks good this year so believe it doesnt really matter where we end up now.
-
Hardwick has allready stated outside mid -So who are the options between 4 and 8
No spoon
-
Gaff, Atley, Hallinan, Caddy, Smedts(Vic)
Polec, Smith (SA)
A couple of those are inside/outside mids.
Darling could fill that role. Would have been happy with Bennell or Swallow if no GC17. Day will go at 3 if he decides to play footy.
-
Factually incorrect - how do you think they got Thomas and Pendlebury? Yep - They tanked!
I don't know the exact details of their draft picks, I really don't follow anyone but us all that closely. But as far as I remember, they haven't finished outside the eight for between 5-10 years (due in part to the dream draw the AFL gifts them every year). So how could they have tanked to get John Thomas and effleberry?
Seems to me, the only way they could possibly get amongst high end draft picks would be to trade off rubbish players to lower clubs stupid enough to swap away their picks.
wrong. In 2004 and 2005, Collingwood finished 13th and 15th. in 2005 they recieved a priority draft which they used to pick dale thomas and with draft pick number2 they picked up pendlebury
remebering pre-2006 Priority draft rules. The Priority Round is at the beginning of the draft, before the First Round. Teams will gain a selection in the Priority Round if they finish the season with fewer than 20.5 premiership points (wins are worth four points, draws are worth two points).
-
Not sport.
Only this sport. Afl is only game in the world that rewards you for losing.
Even basketball has seen the light and has a lottery.
Can you imagion soccer teams wanting to lose games at the end of season
Some "good" results over the weekend for this year's draft with the Bombers, Port and Dees all winning. With our low percentage we're effectively now two games off 13th spot and cemented in the bottom 3 which equates to a top 8 pick at the worst. Only 5 more weeks for Dimma and co. to give FJ and the recruiting staff the best chance to have another clean out and add more and better talent to our list :pray.
% Pts
9. North 86 32
10. Adel 92 28
11. Melb 94 26
12. Ess 84 24
13. Port 80 24
14. Bris 79 20
15. Rich 71 20
16. WCE 78 16
ps. I hope North enjoy waiting until pick 17 which in a normal draft would mean no first round pick despite finishing ninth and no finals. Eek!
I can't believe this. You're actually willing us to fail, and finish bottom. If this is what sport has come to, I don't want to be a part of it. Honestly MT, didn't you enjoy that 5-6 week golden run, when we were knocking off giants, believing we could, and feeling like anything was possible?
Didn't you get caught up in the euphoria? Or were you too busy worrying whether it would mean that we'd get pick 5 or 6 instead of 4 in a compromised draft? Were you relieved when we blew the chance against Nth to climb up to 11th? I was disgusted that instead we remained anchored to 15th, with the Eagles creeping a game closer to relegating us once more to the humiliation of another wooden spoon.
But then, I forgot that the aim of sport is all about losing these days.
If staying down for years to collect draft picks is the answer to success, then how come Collingwood were able to demolish us so comprehensively without ever finishing low enough to secure high draft picks?
Answer: They made do with the picks they've been given, and built a side on belief. Now I have to go and shower in liquid nitrogen. I feel so dirty after complimenting that SCUM.
-
I dont know about you guys But once that ball is bounced I find it almost impossible to hope for anything other than a Tiger victory.
However there is only five rounds to go and we are entering the "Junk Time" of the season.Any victory now must be taken with a grain of salt.No point getting hysterical when we endure heavy defeats like last Saturday either.
Over the last two years we have seen the value of meaningless wins.We won the last 3 games of 2008.WCE won 4 of their last 5 last year.The result is supporters spend the following off season living in a "fools paradise".I certainly spent all of summer 08/09 with delusions of grandeur.
My wish list for the remainder of 2010.
(A) Jack Riewoldt to win the Coleman medal
(B) West Coast to collect their first wooden spoon....You have to be an ex Victorian living in Perth to understand how wonderful this would be.
(C) Richmond to finish 15th.
-
I dont know about you guys But once that ball is bounced I find it almost impossible to hope for anything other than a Tiger victory.
However there is only five rounds to go and we are entering the "Junk Time" of the season.Any victory now must be taken with a grain of salt.No point getting hysterical when we endure heavy defeats like last Saturday either.
Over the last two years we have seen the value of meaningless wins.We won the last 3 games of 2008.WCE won 4 of their last 5 last year.The result is supporters spend the following off season living in a "fools paradise".I certainly spent all of summer 08/09 with delusions of grandeur.
My wish list for the remainder of 2010.
(A) Jack Riewoldt to win the Coleman medal
(B) West Coast to collect their first wooden spoon....You have to be an ex Victorian living in Perth to understand how wonderful this would be.
(C) Richmond to finish 15th.
(D) Collingwood to lose the Grand Final by a point after being 10 goals up at 3/4 time
:lol
-
E. Buddy overdose on ice
-
So round and round it goes where it ends no body knows.
It's obvious that some people will never understand what tanking actually is.
There are a small number who dounderstan, yet are more than happy to cheat. These are the sort of people who risk getting shot in card games.
Then there are the poo stirrers.
The big difference in the way I view things is that if we lose, i take consolation in the fact that it could lead to higher draft picks, some though, do do seem to actually take delight in the loss. Something I cant fathom myself, the idea of barracking for the enemy is just so foreign to me.
It's interesting how some 'pro tankers' are also those that sook the most when we loose, or over selections/non selections of certain players.
"We've put the cue in the rack". what does that mean? the players aren't trying?
The simple FACT :banghead ( ;D) is that we will still finish near the bottom of the ladder without breaking any rules or sinking to the depths of Carlton. People that put little substance on integrity probably don't have much themselves.
Meaningless wins is a good one. if you want to get fair dinkum about what a win means, if you dont win the premiership, then all wins you may have in the season are meaningless.
Anyone that thinks the run of wins we had were meaningless would be at odds, I feel , with the playing group and coaching staff. Anyone that thinks that continually getting beaten does not negatively affect your confidence in your own ability, the team and the coaches, let alone the whole spirit and culture of the club has obviously not played in a side that continually gets beaten.
Then there's the winning culture stupidity.
A winning culture is not a culture developed by winning. A winning culture is a culture that will lead to winning.
Hardwick is installing exactly that sort of culture in this club and that is why when the football gods smiled on us for a month and a bit the team was able to actually take advantage and notch a few morale building wins.
I've very little doubt that the selfish, front running, down hill skiing, pea hearted Richmond of recent years would not have grabbed all of those wins under those circumstances.
-
Factually incorrect - how do you think they got Thomas and Pendlebury? Yep - They tanked!
I don't know the exact details of their draft picks, I really don't follow anyone but us all that closely. But as far as I remember, they haven't finished outside the eight for between 5-10 years (due in part to the dream draw the AFL gifts them every year). So how could they have tanked to get John Thomas and effleberry?
Seems to me, the only way they could possibly get amongst high end draft picks would be to trade off rubbish players to lower clubs stupid enough to swap away their picks.
wrong. In 2004 and 2005, Collingwood finished 13th and 15th. in 2005 they recieved a priority draft which they used to pick dale thomas and with draft pick number2 they picked up pendlebury
remebering pre-2006 Priority draft rules. The Priority Round is at the beginning of the draft, before the First Round. Teams will gain a selection in the Priority Round if they finish the season with fewer than 20.5 premiership points (wins are worth four points, draws are worth two points).
OK, I stand corrected. As I say, my memory of what other clubs do can be pretty sketchy. The Black and White maggots just seem to be thereabouts every year coz they consistently get given such an armchair ride to September. But I still stand by my original statement that they haven't had as many high draft picks as us, yet have progressed a hell of a lot further. Probably because they didn't waste their picks on duds like Tambling, Meyer, JON,Patto, Hughes and Pettifer.
-
OK, I stand corrected. As I say, my memory of what other clubs do can be pretty sketchy. The Black and White maggots just seem to be thereabouts every year coz they consistently get given such an armchair ride to September. But I still stand by my original statement that they haven't had as many high draft picks as us, yet have progressed a hell of a lot further. Probably because they didn't waste their picks on duds like Tambling, Meyer, JON,Patto, Hughes and Pettifer.
What? What about early picks like Danny Roach and Chris Egan, or trades like Cameron Wood?
Danny Stanley?Ryan Cook? Nathan Brown (pick 8 or 10, taken before Riewoldt)? The two older Cloke brothers?
All clubs waste picks.
-
Cue in the rack means that although they go out to win they will be trying players in different positions or playing players from Coburg to see if they are required !! Players with small injuries will be rested or put on ice i.e Moore, White, Thursfield.
Mate, that is cue in the rack stuff so dont get all emotional about the term.
-
West Coast play Brisbane next week - you would think one of them would win and either way it would suggest one of them will move up the ladder.
That doesnt mean we wont win and move up as well - interesting.
-
West Coast play Brisbane this week -
no, it is Freo
-
Cue in the rack means that although they go out to win they will be trying players in different positions or playing players from Coburg to see if they are required !! Players with small injuries will be rested or put on ice i.e Moore, White, Thursfield.
Mate, that is cue in the rack stuff so don't get all emotional about the term.
So cue in the rack is another way of saying smart long term list management? I always thought when you put the cue in the rack you had basically given up or finished? The term must have a different origin than billiards or snooker I suppose.
-
OK, I stand corrected. As I say, my memory of what other clubs do can be pretty sketchy. The Black and White maggots just seem to be thereabouts every year coz they consistently get given such an armchair ride to September. But I still stand by my original statement that they haven't had as many high draft picks as us, yet have progressed a hell of a lot further. Probably because they didn't waste their picks on duds like Tambling, Meyer, JON,Patto, Hughes and Pettifer.
What? What about early picks like Danny Roach and Chris Egan, or trades like Cameron Wood?
Danny Stanley?Ryan Cook? Nathan Brown (pick 8 or 10, taken before Riewoldt)? The two older Cloke brothers?
All clubs waste picks.
Aaarrgghh!! I'm just trying to make a fairly obvious point here, and people keep nit-picking on specifics. My point is this: A lot of people on here argue that the ONLY way to long-term success is to stay down for several years and load up on early draft picks. But neither Geelong or Collingwood have done this. Sure, Geelong have been luckier than most clubs with quality father-son picks, and the AFL manipulates the fixture to ensure Collingwood a smooth run to September. But I'm sure that our list has more top 10 draft picks on it than either of these clubs, yet is still way behind them both.
Edit: fixed quoting
-
Pies tanked in 05 to collect two key players in the teamnow
we got Jon with out one top ten pick
-
Talking of JON how is he going at WCE?
Anyone?, Y&B?
-
Talking of JON how is he going at WCE?
Anyone?, Y&B?
http://oneeyed-richmond.com/forum//index.php?topic=1719.msg199367#msg199367
:thumbsup
-
Talking of JON how is he going at WCE?
Anyone?, Y&B?
JON kicked 6.1 for East Perth on the weekend. :gobdrop
Woosha mentioned him on the radio last night as a possible inclusion . :gobdrop
JON has kicked 15 goals in 16 games at WAFL level this year. :gobdrop
-
I can't believe this. You're actually willing us to fail, and finish bottom. If this is what sport has come to, I don't want to be a part of it. Honestly MT, didn't you enjoy that 5-6 week golden run, when we were knocking off giants, believing we could, and feeling like anything was possible?
Quite the opposite RR. I'm actually willing us to succeed in the long run. Success is only measured by premierships; not 5-6 "feelgood" weeks when there's no chance of finals before copping a massive reality check from Magpie scum dancing and shimmeying after goals right in our face :banghead.
Didn't you get caught up in the euphoria?
Nup. While I was wrapt to see our young cubs progressing and playing good footy as a team and us actually playing exciting footy to watch, I have a long-term view on where we are at and where we need to get to. We are still miles away as proven on the weekend. I'm old enough to still remember when genuine euphoria to Tiger supporters was winning big games, finals and flags. I don't want 30 years of pain and failure to become 40, 50, etc years thanks to more "ninths".
Or were you too busy worrying whether it would mean that we'd get pick 5 or 6 instead of 4 in a compromised draft?
Were you relieved when we blew the chance against Nth to climb up to 11th? I was disgusted that instead we remained anchored to 15th, with the Eagles creeping a game closer to relegating us once more to the humiliation of another wooden spoon.
But then, I forgot that the aim of sport is all about losing these days.
I didn't design the draft system RR. Blame the AFL. It's just that after so many years where we'd finish ninth or thereabouts and miss out on finals yet get punished by the draft system, I've had enough and say let's use the system to our best possible advantage and give our recruiters the best chance to bring in the best talented kids at each round of the draft. Play the 'game' as other clubs have and do. I mean we haven't played finals in 9 years and I think that's twice as long as the next worst club and just twice in the past 28 yet other clubs were rewarded in recent years time and time again at the draft table for just one or two bad years after making finals. Makes ya sick! :banghead
Was I relieved we didn't rise to 11th? You betcha! Fools good especially in a compromised draft where finishing midladder equates to no first round pick in a normal draft. It would've been recruiting suicide for where we are in our rebuild.
If staying down for years to collect draft picks is the answer to success, then how come Collingwood were able to demolish us so comprehensively without ever finishing low enough to secure high draft picks?
Answer: They made do with the picks they've been given, and built a side on belief. Now I have to go and shower in liquid nitrogen. I feel so dirty after complimenting that SCUM.
As mentioned by others Collingwood tanked in 2005 after a poor 2004. They put all their senior players in cotton wool in the second half of the year so they could get a pre-first round priority pick and two picks inside the top 5 of draft.
Most clubs understood the draft system doesn't help the perennial crap clubs with poor lists. It helps the clubs with a well maintained solid quality playing core the most where you can replenish it with quality youth by bottoming out during a couple of poor years before rising up again.
When did Richmond last maintain a solid quality core of players to build around? 1995 perhaps and then we didn't build around then with youth which caused the last 9 years and counting of crap where we've had to rebuild from scratch :scream. In 20 years of the draft Richmond never understood the system. Even last year we stupidly won more than 4 games which would have given us a chance of picks 4 and 6 this year had we kept our wins to four. Two and a half extra wins against ordinary sides for what? A missed opportunity. Let's not now totally stuff it up by ending up with no early picks come November. No one will remember any of our wins this year in 3-5 plus years time but they will remember a top 5 kid who stars for us for the next decade alongside our other top picks in Martin, Cotch, Lids and Jack. Let's build a strong quality A-grade core surrounded by decent list depth who will lead us to our next premiership inside the next 6 years if we do this properly.
ps. RR ask our friendly wise godmother of the RFC at training where she wants us to finish this year ;)
-
What was putting your senior players in cotton wool, once you realised your season was effectively over, called before the draft came in?
-
for Richmond this year putting the cue in the rack would meangiving games to gourdis, Taylor, hicks, orielly, Grimes, gilligan games
So round and round it goes where it ends no body knows.
It's obvious that some people will never understand what tanking actually is.
There are a small number who dounderstan, yet are more than happy to cheat. These are the sort of people who risk getting shot in card games.
Then there are the poo stirrers.
The big difference in the way I view things is that if we lose, i take consolation in the fact that it could lead to higher draft picks, some though, do do seem to actually take delight in the loss. Something I cant fathom myself, the idea of barracking for the enemy is just so foreign to me.
It's interesting how some 'pro tankers' are also those that sook the most when we loose, or over selections/non selections of certain players.
"We've put the cue in the rack". what does that mean? the players aren't trying?
The simple FACT :banghead ( ;D) is that we will still finish near the bottom of the ladder without breaking any rules or sinking to the depths of Carlton. People that put little substance on integrity probably don't have much themselves.
Meaningless wins is a good one. if you want to get fair dinkum about what a win means, if you dont win the premiership, then all wins you may have in the season are meaningless.
Anyone that thinks the run of wins we had were meaningless would be at odds, I feel , with the playing group and coaching staff. Anyone that thinks that continually getting beaten does not negatively affect your confidence in your own ability, the team and the coaches, let alone the whole spirit and culture of the club has obviously not played in a side that continually gets beaten.
Then there's the winning culture stupidity.
A winning culture is not a culture developed by winning. A winning culture is a culture that will lead to winning.
Hardwick is installing exactly that sort of culture in this club and that is why when the football gods smiled on us for a month and a bit the team was able to actually take advantage and notch a few morale building wins.
I've very little doubt that the selfish, front running, down hill skiing, pea hearted Richmond of recent years would not have grabbed all of those wins under those circumstances.
-
Dea, Taylor, Hicks, grimes, Gilligan, oreilly, even contin should get a game if not two before end of the year
Browne should play out the season for development if not gourdis, rance, post also
-
might as well bring back Relton Roberts and give him a game as well ::)
-
might as well bring back Relton Roberts and give him a game as well ::)
might as well wheel out the hamburgers at half time while we are at it.
people dont understand you have to earn games to play senior football. Hicks :banghead :banghead another midget thats all we need
we might as well try and revive Gary Coleman and get him down to Punt Road too.
Outside of Gourdis no one else deserves a game at the minute
-
I would like to see those who haven't played be given the last five matches!
I would put these "Cues In The Rack" ...
Moore, Thursfield, McGuane, White ...
Play Rance, Gourdis, Grimes, Astbury in the defence.
Leave Post up forward with Riewoldt.
How far is Taylor from playing?
Simmonds, Roberts, McMahon we know are gone, so have to see the rest of the list.
Pick 4 - Andrew Gaff ...
2011 Round 1 - Foley, Cotchin, Martin, Gaff ... then add - White, Deledio, Tambling, Tuck, Collins, Jackson.
Question for all - Ben Cousins ... will they give him another year?
:)
-
If dea gets over his injury he should be givin a game, not because he deserves but cause it'll help him long term.
Taylor or gourdis would add something different.
Orielly has been playing ok and one afl game would him a world of good if we are going to keep him next season.
This is putting the cue in the rack - looking how this players who should be in the team 3 or 4 years from now alongside deledio, jr8, martin
-
the sun would still come up if hicks was player in a forward pocket ahead if nahas
might as well bring back Relton Roberts and give him a game as well ::)
might as well wheel out the hamburgers at half time while we are at it.
people dont understand you have to earn games to play senior football. Hicks :banghead :banghead another midget thats all we need
we might as well try and revive Gary Coleman and get him down to Punt Road too.
Outside of Gourdis no one else deserves a game at the minute
-
Mighty Tigers:
Despite what you say, I still believe that for the most part, the only thing our young list is missing is experience. On Saturday we were carved up by a battle-hardened side with years of pre-season's in their legs and their muscles,five solid years of (losing :lol) finals experience, and a game plan that they've been adhering to for so long it's second nature to them.
Not only did we field a side of kids, many in their 1st or 2nd year, and showing distinct signs of tiring late in the year, but we were decimated by injury and suspension (Cotchin, Jackson, Foley, Griffiths, White, Thursfield, Moore), and bizarrely tried on the day to play to some zone structure, instead of man on man.This led to soft, downhill-skiing clowns like Didak and Davis, who always go missing in September, being gifted a lot of gimmee goals.
If, as you say, we stock up on more kids with high draft picks, by this stage next year they too will be running out of puff and being brushed aside by more experienced teams. It's just an unfortunate part of being inexperienced. To say that our list still needs major work is an insult to the huge raft of kids that we've drafted in the last 2 years. To use an agricultural metaphor, no farmer tries to harvest his crop as soon as he's planted the seeds. Let's see how these kids are with 4 or 5 pre-season's under their belts.
As for my argument re:Collingwood and Geelong. Okay, as I've acknowledged, I forgot the Pies got a couple of high picks in 2004/5. But we still have w-a-y more top 10 draft picks running around than them or Geelong. Boththose clubs just recruited smatere with middle to low-end draft picks, which proves that it can be done, without celebrating losing.
-
Mighty Tigers:
..........
Both those clubs just recruited smatere with middle to low-end draft picks, which proves that it can be done, without celebrating losing.
And both of you have neglected the most important point of all. It makes far, far less difference what number pick you get - it's how you develop those picks that is the crux of the matter and if we are going to be come a successful, powerful side again then it will be on the back of our development, not our high draft picks.
-
Mighty Tigers:
..........
Both those clubs just recruited smatere with middle to low-end draft picks, which proves that it can be done, without celebrating losing.
And both of you have neglected the most important point of all. It makes far, far less difference what number pick you get - it's how you develop those picks that is the crux of the matter and if we are going to be come a successful, powerful side again then it will be on the back of our development, not our high draft picks.
With you 100% on that one Smokey. I didn't really think of that point, as I was off on another tangent, and my post was already getting long with spelling errors creeping in :lol. But I think promoting and developing a WINNING CULTURE,combined with smart use of middle to lower tier draft picks is far
more important than laying low for several years to pick up slightly higher draft picks.
-
....and, as you say, developing the players that we do have PROPERLY. Too many times in the past we have failed to bring out the best in talented players. And they have either moved on to bigger and better things (Rodan, Peterson) or just stagnated altogether.
-
Mighty Tigers:
..........
Both those clubs just recruited smatere with middle to low-end draft picks, which proves that it can be done, without celebrating losing.
And both of you have neglected the most important point of all. It makes far, far less difference what number pick you get - it's how you develop those picks that is the crux of the matter and if we are going to be come a successful, powerful side again then it will be on the back of our development, not our high draft picks.
You're half right here smokey - we are finally investing in the develop of our young players (something the better clubs have done for years) but it is not so much the pick itself but rather the informed choice made using that pick. We have been terrible for decades in using our picks to find players with suitable potential to grow into talent. Our 2004 draft is prime example of this - 5 picks in the top 20 and we only made one correct choice which was the standout/obvious one.
Development goes hand in hand with drafting and drafting isn't all about the pick order either. What finishing earlier does though is give you a better range of choices. If you have poor recruiters who make poor decisions, it won't matter what pick number you have you will get an average to poor players. Development may improve them but they will never be as good as the kid you missed out on who had better match-sense, skills, decision making and/or natural talent.
The drafting and the order of our picks have never been more important than this year for us. The Gold Coast has gutted the draft and made finishing higher up the pecking order 2/3 times as difficult with order of selection. Now with our currect crop of recruiters, we can be confident they will make the right choices and find us talented players. We need to give them as many chances as we can to find the best players they can and finishing low on the ladder will do this.
Development is paramount to success - yes, but finding the raw talent to teach is equally important and we're not there yet.
Stripes
-
Mighty Tigers:
Despite what you say, I still believe that for the most part, the only thing our young list is missing is experience. On Saturday we were carved up by a battle-hardened side with years of pre-season's in their legs and their muscles,five solid years of (losing :lol) finals experience, and a game plan that they've been adhering to for so long it's second nature to them.
Not only did we field a side of kids, many in their 1st or 2nd year, and showing distinct signs of tiring late in the year, but we were decimated by injury and suspension (Cotchin, Jackson, Foley, Griffiths, White, Thursfield, Moore), and bizarrely tried on the day to play to some zone structure, instead of man on man.This led to soft, downhill-skiing clowns like Didak and Davis, who always go missing in September, being gifted a lot of gimmee goals.
True we had a lot of key outs but the Pies were missing Shaw and Cloke and have Fraser and Medhurst in the ressies. They have depth to cover their outs and pick and choose. We obviously don't yet and IMO it's not just a wait and see with our list issue. It's also true the Pies had far more experience but what about the week before against North when we were dreadful as well. We still lack class even potential class across the park on our list. We are still scanning through our list to find out who is up to it or not. Only Jack, Lids, Cotch and Martin are potential A-graders on our list at the moment (all early picks which isn't a coincidence). Sure you need to develop and get consistent contributions from the whole 22 and beyond on your list to become a good side but classier youngsters are easier to develop and it's class that wins flags. It's why the Pies go missing in September because they lack classy players where and when it counts most in finals. That class is found these days at the top end of the draft.
If, as you say, we stock up on more kids with high draft picks, by this stage next year they too will be running out of puff and being brushed aside by more experienced teams. It's just an unfortunate part of being inexperienced. To say that our list still needs major work is an insult to the huge raft of kids that we've drafted in the last 2 years. To use an agricultural metaphor, no farmer tries to harvest his crop as soon as he's planted the seeds. Let's see how these kids are with 4 or 5 pre-season's under their belts.
The bit in bold is the whole point to rebuilding. You need to bottom out properly over a couple of years, take your medicine as a club and use the draft system to your maximum advantage. By winning just 2.5 more games in the past two seasons we have cost ourselves another top 20 pick last year and another top 6 pick this year. Imagine if we could have added two young guns inside the top 6 of this year's draft to our existing promising cubs. Or last year instead of searching in whoop-whoop for a Roberts with a late rookie pick, we pick up a top 20 kid who is committed to and capable of a successful AFL career. It's what Melbourne did last year and the year before that. It's what Hawthorn, St Kilda, Collingwood and the Bulldogs did during the past decade. They played the system for all its worth. Other clubs will improve as well and their youth will improve. We haven't yet seen most of Melbourne's kids from the past 2 drafts yet. When you get an opportunity to gain an advantage over the other clubs you should jump at it.
As for my argument re:Collingwood and Geelong. Okay, as I've acknowledged, I forgot the Pies got a couple of high picks in 2004/5. But we still have w-a-y more top 10 draft picks running around than them or Geelong. Boththose clubs just recruited smatere with middle to low-end draft picks, which proves that it can be done, without celebrating losing.
Our top 10 picks who played last weekend: Lids, Jack and Martin. That's just 3. We were missing Cotch while Vickery and Tambling were dropped to the ressies. That's just six all up. If you count Jack as a first rounder then it's seven. We haven't had the luxury of quality Father-Sons walking in by the cheap like the Cats and Pies did. We are only half-way there in the rebuild of our list and at least 3 years minimum away from playing finals IMO. Playing the system for all its worth would accelerate our ascension into a top side.
Geelong: Mackie (7), Selwood (7), Corey (8 ), Bartel (8 ), Varcoe (15), Kelly (17), Taylor (17), Ablett (F/S), Scarlett (F/S), Hawkins (F/S), traded two first rounders for Ottens.
Steven King who played in their 2007 flag was a compensation pick back in the mid-90s.
Tenace (7) was a flop.
Collingwood: Fraser (1), Thomas (2), Didak (3), Pendlebury (5), Reid (8 ), Presti (10), Brown (10), Jolly (14), Wood (14), Shaw (F/S), Cloke (F/S).
So they both aren't first rounders poor. As has been mentioned what both clubs have done better than us is use their 2nd and 3rd round picks. Finishing low on the ladder gives you higher 2nd and 3rd rounders especially in these compromised draft. It's all about giving our recruiters a greater draft pool to select from to find the best possible young players available.
Remember in this draft you need to finish bottom 3 just to finish up with pick 8 which in a normal draft belonged to the club that finished ninth. Finishing 9th-11th this year and you end up with a lousy first pick in the mid-late teens plus very late 2nd and 3rd round picks. It would be recruiting suicide for us.
The other thing to remember is recruiting methods, statistics and scouting are more rigorous and sophisticated nowdays compared to even 5-10 years ago so there are fewer mistakes with selections being made at the top end of the draft. The top 7 kids of the 2009 draft are playing seniors in their debut year and all look the goods. It's no coincidence. This year 100 kids will attend the upcoming draft camp with all its kicking etc tests. The guesswork in drafting at the top end has ever so slowly being minimised. Richmond should use that increasing certainty to add more class and quality to our list.
-
Mighty Tigers:
..........
Both those clubs just recruited smatere with middle to low-end draft picks, which proves that it can be done, without celebrating losing.
And both of you have neglected the most important point of all. It makes far, far less difference what number pick you get - it's how you develop those picks that is the crux of the matter and if we are going to be come a successful, powerful side again then it will be on the back of our development, not our high draft picks.
You're half right here smokey - we are finally investing in the develop of our young players (something the better clubs have done for years) but it is not so much the pick itself but rather the informed choice made using that pick. We have been terrible for decades in using our picks to find players with suitable potential to grow into talent. Our 2004 draft is prime example of this - 5 picks in the top 20 and we only made one correct choice which was the standout/obvious one.
Development goes hand in hand with drafting and drafting isn't all about the pick order either. What finishing earlier does though is give you a better range of choices. If you have poor recruiters who make poor decisions, it won't matter what pick number you have you will get an average to poor players. Development may improve them but they will never be as good as the kid you missed out on who had better match-sense, skills, decision making and/or natural talent.
The drafting and the order of our picks have never been more important than this year for us. The Gold Coast has gutted the draft and made finishing higher up the pecking order 2/3 times as difficult with order of selection. Now with our currect crop of recruiters, we can be confident they will make the right choices and find us talented players. We need to give them as many chances as we can to find the best players they can and finishing low on the ladder will do this.
Development is paramount to success - yes, but finding the raw talent to teach is equally important and we're not there yet.
Stripes
Top post Stripes :clapping.
That last sentence is another way of saying you can't make strawberry jam from manure as Lethal would say. Being a side of hard triers only takes you so far if you don't have the talent and class to begin with.
-
Mighty Tigers:
Despite what you say, I still believe that for the most part, the only thing our young list is missing is experience. On Saturday we were carved up by a battle-hardened side with years of pre-season's in their legs and their muscles,five solid years of (losing :lol) finals experience, and a game plan that they've been adhering to for so long it's second nature to them.
Not only did we field a side of kids, many in their 1st or 2nd year, and showing distinct signs of tiring late in the year, but we were decimated by injury and suspension (Cotchin, Jackson, Foley, Griffiths, White, Thursfield, Moore), and bizarrely tried on the day to play to some zone structure, instead of man on man.This led to soft, downhill-skiing clowns like Didak and Davis, who always go missing in September, being gifted a lot of gimmee goals.
True we had a lot of key outs but the Pies were missing Shaw and Cloke and have Fraser and Medhurst in the ressies. They have depth to cover their outs and pick and choose. We obviously don't yet and IMO it's not just a wait and see with our list issue. It's also true the Pies had far more experience but what about the week before against North when we were dreadful as well. We still lack class even potential class across the park on our list. We are still scanning through our list to find out who is up to it or not. Only Jack, Lids, Cotch and Martin are potential A-graders on our list at the moment (all early picks which isn't a coincidence). Sure you need to develop and get consistent contributions from the whole 22 and beyond on your list to become a good side but classier youngsters are easier to develop and it's class that wins flags. It's why the Pies go missing in September because they lack classy players where and when it counts most in finals. That class is found these days at the top end of the draft.
If, as you say, we stock up on more kids with high draft picks, by this stage next year they too will be running out of puff and being brushed aside by more experienced teams. It's just an unfortunate part of being inexperienced. To say that our list still needs major work is an insult to the huge raft of kids that we've drafted in the last 2 years. To use an agricultural metaphor, no farmer tries to harvest his crop as soon as he's planted the seeds. Let's see how these kids are with 4 or 5 pre-season's under their belts.
The bit in bold is the whole point to rebuilding. You need to bottom out properly over a couple of years, take your medicine as a club and use the draft system to your maximum advantage. By winning just 2.5 more games in the past two seasons we have cost ourselves another top 20 pick last year and another top 6 pick this year. Imagine if we could have added two young guns inside the top 6 of this year's draft to our existing promising cubs. Or last year instead of searching in whoop-whoop for a Roberts with a late rookie pick, we pick up a top 20 kid who is committed to and capable of a successful AFL career. It's what Melbourne did last year and the year before that. It's what Hawthorn, St Kilda, Collingwood and the Bulldogs did during the past decade. They played the system for all its worth. Other clubs will improve as well and their youth will improve. We haven't yet seen most of Melbourne's kids from the past 2 drafts yet. When you get an opportunity to gain an advantage over the other clubs you should jump at it.
As for my argument re:Collingwood and Geelong. Okay, as I've acknowledged, I forgot the Pies got a couple of high picks in 2004/5. But we still have w-a-y more top 10 draft picks running around than them or Geelong. Boththose clubs just recruited smatere with middle to low-end draft picks, which proves that it can be done, without celebrating losing.
Our top 10 picks who played last weekend: Lids, Jack and Martin. That's just 3. We were missing Cotch while Vickery and Tambling were dropped to the ressies. That's just six all up. If you count Jack as a first rounder then it's seven. We haven't had the luxury of quality Father-Sons walking in by the cheap like the Cats and Pies did. We are only half-way there in the rebuild of our list and at least 3 years minimum away from playing finals IMO. Playing the system for all its worth would accelerate our ascension into a top side.
Geelong: Mackie (7), Selwood (7), Corey (8 ), Bartel (8 ), Varcoe (15), Kelly (17), Taylor (17), Ablett (F/S), Scarlett (F/S), Hawkins (F/S), traded two first rounders for Ottens.
Steven King who played in their 2007 flag was a compensation pick back in the mid-90s.
Tenace (7) was a flop.
Collingwood: Fraser (1), Thomas (2), Didak (3), Pendlebury (5), Reid (8 ), Presti (10), Brown (10), Jolly (14), Wood (14), Shaw (F/S), Cloke (F/S).
So they both aren't first rounders poor. As has been mentioned what both clubs have done better than us is use their 2nd and 3rd round picks. Finishing low on the ladder gives you higher 2nd and 3rd rounders especially in these compromised draft. It's all about giving our recruiters a greater draft pool to select from to find the best possible young players available.
Remember in this draft you need to finish bottom 3 just to finish up with pick 8 which in a normal draft belonged to the club that finished ninth. Finishing 9th-11th this year and you end up with a lousy first pick in the mid-late teens plus very late 2nd and 3rd round picks. It would be recruiting suicide for us.
The other thing to remember is recruiting methods, statistics and scouting are more rigorous and sophisticated nowdays compared to even 5-10 years ago so there are fewer mistakes with selections being made at the top end of the draft. The top 7 kids of the 2009 draft are playing seniors in their debut year and all look the goods. It's no coincidence. This year 100 kids will attend the upcoming draft camp with all its kicking etc tests. The guesswork in drafting at the top end has ever so slowly being minimised. Richmond should use that increasing certainty to add more class and quality to our list.
Right back at you MT! Great post :clapping Make's perfect sense to me. I think many people find it difficult to get past the simple fact that you you are trying to rebuid winning isn't always the best thing for your future. :shh ;)
-
I think many people find it difficult to get past the simple fact that you are trying to rebuild winning isn't always the best thing for your future. :shh ;)
Neither is losing.
-
No, you can't make strawberry jam from manure. But then to dismiss kids like Nason, Astbury, Webberley and Griffiths as manure just because they weren't absolute premium draft picks is pretty insulting to their ability and worth.
And the fact that we secured such promising players with the benefit of smart recruiting with mid to late-range draft picks only proves my point.
Compare this to the way the previous administration frittered away early draft picks on the likes of Tambling (4) Meyer(12) Pattison(16) Polo(20) JON (8) and Hughes. That list re-building 2004 draft was really worth finishing on the bottom for AGAIN-wasn't it????
Look, we're just going round and round in ever-decreasing circles on this one. We're just going to have to agree to disagree. But one last point is that players aren't machines. You can't just de-program them, and re-program them at the stuff of a switch. And I think it would be virtually impossible to re-build a team's self-confidence and belief after you've encouraged them to lay low for 2-3 years,taking one beating after another, while we slowly put together the kind of elite list you think is worthy of challenging the big boys.
-
No, you can't make strawberry jam from manure. But then to dismiss kids like Nason, Astbury, Webberley and Griffiths as manure just because they weren't absolute premium draft picks is pretty insulting to their ability and worth.
And the fact that we secured such promising players with the benefit of smart recruiting with mid to late-range draft picks only proves my point.
Compare this to the way the previous administration frittered away early draft picks on the likes of Tambling (4) Meyer(12) Pattison(16) Polo(20) JON (8) and Hughes. That list re-building 2004 draft was really worth finishing on the bottom for AGAIN-wasn't it????
Look, we're just going round and round in ever-decreasing circles on this one. We're just going to have to agree to disagree. But one last point is that players aren't machines. You can't just de-program them, and re-program them at the stuff of a switch. And I think it would be virtually impossible to re-build a team's self-confidence and belief after you've encouraged them to lay low for 2-3 years,taking one beating after another, while we slowly put together the kind of elite list you think is worthy of challenging the big boys.
Melbourne begs to differ :shh
-
No, you can't make strawberry jam from manure. But then to dismiss kids like Nason, Astbury, Webberley and Griffiths as manure just because they weren't absolute premium draft picks is pretty insulting to their ability and worth.
And the fact that we secured such promising players with the benefit of smart recruiting with mid to late-range draft picks only proves my point.
Compare this to the way the previous administration frittered away early draft picks on the likes of Tambling (4) Meyer(12) Pattison(16) Polo(20) JON (8) and Hughes. That list re-building 2004 draft was really worth finishing on the bottom for AGAIN-wasn't it????
Look, we're just going round and round in ever-decreasing circles on this one. We're just going to have to agree to disagree. But one last point is that players aren't machines. You can't just de-program them, and re-program them at the stuff of a switch. And I think it would be virtually impossible to re-build a team's self-confidence and belief after you've encouraged them to lay low for 2-3 years,taking one beating after another, while we slowly put together the kind of elite list you think is worthy of challenging the big boys.
Melbourne begs to differ :shh
When Melbourne becomes successful and wins a flag by doing it then I might be persuaded to change my mind. Until then, I will go with what I know - that tanking has never won a team a flag in the history of the AFL.
-
how dose collingwood do it? how often do they tank?
-
how dose collingwood do it? how often do they tank?
they tanked to get Pendlebury and Thomas, they are topping up there list in search of a flag, If they fail in the next 2 years Buckley will have a hell of a time replacing players who will be coming to an end.
-
how dose collingwood do it? how often do they tank?
they tanked to get Pendlebury and Thomas, they are topping up there list in search of a flag, If they fail in the next 2 years Buckley will have a hell of a time replacing players who will be coming to an end.
collingwood will jsut throw money at out of contract players ... yes? i wonder if tthey have aproached Reiwoldt
-
collingwood will jsut throw money at out of contract players ... yes? i wonder if tthey have aproached Reiwoldt
They haven't had much luck doing that.
-
No, you can't make strawberry jam from manure. But then to dismiss kids like Nason, Astbury, Webberley and Griffiths as manure just because they weren't absolute premium draft picks is pretty insulting to their ability and worth.
And the fact that we secured such promising players with the benefit of smart recruiting with mid to late-range draft picks only proves my point.
Compare this to the way the previous administration frittered away early draft picks on the likes of Tambling (4) Meyer(12) Pattison(16) Polo(20) JON (8) and Hughes. That list re-building 2004 draft was really worth finishing on the bottom for AGAIN-wasn't it????
In 2004 we did the right thing gaining all those picks. We just had poor resources and the wrong people to pick properly and not waste them. It would've been far worse if say we won a few games late in the season and finished with a first pick say around 8. Then we would've missed out competely (at least we got Lids) given our poor recruiting as we did the following year :P. In 2005 we didn't bottom out fully after 2004. We finished 12th IIRC while Hawthorn, Collingwood and Carlton all finished bottom 3 and all scored pre-first round priority picks ::). So rather than picking up say Murphy and Ryder who we wanted to slip to pick 8 we went with JON :P and then because we went 'small' with our first pick we went with an inferior tall in Cleve at pick 24 chasing a KPP. So many things wrong with our reasoning in the 2005 draft it just shows we never had a clue.
Btw I wasn't insulting the players we picked up in last year's draft as we still could have chosen those same players plus another with a top 20 priority pick we missed out on for winning 1.5 games than we should've. Cameron should've told Jade to keep our wins to no more than four :scream. This year we miss out another priority pick and if we had kept our wins to just 4 last and this year we would gain an extra pick at 6. It's these bonus early picks combined with a resourced recruiting dept. and strong player development that accelerates the rebuilding process.
Look, we're just going round and round in ever-decreasing circles on this one. We're just going to have to agree to disagree.
No probs. Yep we'll agree to disagree on this.
But one last point is that players aren't machines. You can't just de-program them, and re-program them at the stuff of a switch. And I think it would be virtually impossible to re-build a team's self-confidence and belief after you've encouraged them to lay low for 2-3 years,taking one beating after another, while we slowly put together the kind of elite list you think is worthy of challenging the big boys.
True the players aren't machines but you don't ask the players to tank. The tanking is done via team selections, match-ups, trying players in different positions and combinations. As for player confidence I remember us flogging Geelong at the Dome in 2000 by 77 points. It didn't do Ling, Corey, Enright, Mooney, Milburn and Scarlett any harm in the long run. Nor did Hawthorn losing 12 games out of 13 in the middle of 2006 stop them from playing finals the following year and then win a flag the year after that.
-
I know it's been done to death but I'm still spewing that we gave up pick 19 for mcmahon three years ago. It's one thing to go through a bit of pain to get picks - I can deal with that in the short term. But for heaven's sake, when you get these picks make 'em count.
I don't think we've tanked a great deal. I'm pretty sure we could easily have repeated our 2004 effort a couple of times and really loaded up like the Dees. Believe it or not, Wallace was actually trying to win you know.
If we end up with pick 4, I'm not going to complain. We still have a fair way to go to build the sort of quality into our list that wins flags. I won't call it tanking to start throwing the likes of O'Reilly, Gourdis etc into the fray right - I'd rather call it a "purposeful rebuild" and period of player development.
-
I thought an article of Leigh Matthews from the AFL site this week is quite relevant to this discussion, especially when have been discussing the possibility of turning "manure into strawberry jam" and the critical need to tank for high draft picks to build a decent side. Here is what he has to say:
The sum of parts
By Leigh Matthews 7:11 AM Wed 28 July, 2010
TO BE blunt, I’ve always believed in the old saying that it’s impossible to make strawberry jam out of horse manure.
Given Collingwood have half a team of rookies and lowly ranked draft choices that have been instrumental in the Magpies' surge to the top of the AFL ladder, the effectiveness of Mick Malthouse’s coaching and development operation is reversing that well-proven theory.
And I use this analogy in the nicest possible way because the outstanding Collingwood form has some unique features.
Firstly, there is a big group of Collingwood players whose performances this season have been very good despite them not being established, proven senior players.
Looking through the side that dismantled Richmond last Saturday, I found 11 players who wouldn’t exactly cause shockwaves if they were left out of the side in the weeks ahead.
There’s Dayne Beams, Jarryd Blair, Leigh Brown, Chris Dawes, Tyson Goldsack, Ben Johnson, Tarkyn Lockyer, Brent Macaffer, Steele Sidebottom, Alan Toovey and Sharrod Wellingham.
These are players who would still be a bit nervous ahead of selection every Thursday night. That’s not to say some of these players haven’t been playing well.
Only last Saturday Brown received a vote in the 3AW Player of the Year award, as he’d done the week before. Clearly, he’s had two terrific games.
Beams has averaged 21 possessions and kicked 17 goals in 16 games, and Sidebottom 18 possessions a game for 16 goals in 16 games.
Johnson and Wellingham have averaged 21 possessions from 15 games, while Dawes, with 21 goals in 11 games, sits second on the club goalkicking list, equal with Travis Cloke and behind only Didak (29).
But what I’m saying is that these players are not necessarily permanent fixtures in the senior side and might not survive a few down weeks and still hold their spot.
I’ve always believed that while playing for your position each week may be a good motivation, it can also be quite nerve-wracking and not exactly conducive to maximising performance levels.
At Collingwood, though, this ‘living on the edge’ process seems to be working a treat.
But back to my first paragraph..
The thing that hits me the most about the Collingwood team at the moment is the unusually high number of players who have come into the AFL system with a relatively modest draft ranking.
Sure, they’ve got the normal handful of high draft selections. And by ‘high’ I mean 1-20. There’s Dale Thomas (pick No.2), Alan Didak (3), Scott Pendlebury (5), Ben Reid (8), Simon Prestigiacomo (10) and Sidebottom (11). Plus Luke Ball, who was originally taken at No.3.
Their list also includes two comparatively cheap father/son signings in Heath Shaw and Cloke, and what you might term a high-price recruit in Darren Jolly, who cost the Magpies selections No.14 and 46 in last year’s national draft.
Otherwise, it is a line-up dominated by players from humble football beginnings.
I must say I’ve always been a bit cynical when I hear clubs talking of a five-year plan. To me a month is a long time in footy, and next year is an absolute eternity away.
The process of recruiting raw talent and developing it to maximum potential is the obvious first step in any club operation.
Enormous credit must go to the Collingwood coaching and development system which has churned out a big group of players who were low-ranked horse-manure draft and rookie choices, but are producing strawberry jam performances.
With Shaw and Cloke missing from the top side last weekend, there were no less than 15 players who were drafted at 25-plus, including an extraordinary seven players who started out as rookies.
The ex-rookies are a talented list in their own right - captain Nick Maxwell, Harry O’Brien, Wellingham, Lockyer, Macaffer, Toovey and Blair.
To have seven players in the top team who started their careers as obscure rookies is quite remarkable.
Of the others, there was Dawes, taken at selection No.28, Beams (29), Leon Davis (34), Dane Swan (58), Johnson (62), Goldsack (63) and Brown (73), plus Ball, whose price tag to the Pies was selection No.30 in last year’s national draft.
As hard as it might seem to be underrated playing for the heavily publicised Magpies, there are a lot of relative young unknowns playing well above their reputation. And, oddly, there are some more high profile types not in the side. Like Jack Anthony, Nathan Brown, Brad idiot, Josh Fraser, Paul Medhurst, Shane O’Bree and Cameron Wood.
Interestingly, too, only one Collingwood player - midfielder Swan - is a certain All-Australian.
Didak might be classified as a ‘likely’ All-Australian choice, with O’Brien a possibility, but otherwise they have no genuine Team of the Year contenders.
No doubt this year Jolly, as a strong power ruckman, and Ball, as another in-close ball-winner, have been valuable additions to the Collingwood side.
The biggest improver in its own ranks is stuff Reid. Drafted at No.8 in 2006 as a highly-rated key forward, he had played only eight games in three years prior to this year. Last year he played two senior games while spending most of his time learning to play key defence in the VFL.
Obviously he did so with very good effect in what is further proof of a development process that requires young players to be given time, patience and training at a lower level to gain the necessary confidence and skill-set to be successful at the top level.
Leaving aside first-year players in terms of those who can be measured from season to season, Reid might just be the competition’s most improved, progressing from out of the team into a very competent key defender.
Collingwood started the season as one of the five clubs that I thought could win the premiership and their chances have only grown after 17 rounds. And they have got to the top with a champion team more so than a team of champions.
Therein lies that nagging doubt because to win the flag they will have to find a way to beat the mighty Geelong, who have the proven double: they are both a champion team and a team of champions.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/99099/default.aspx (http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/99099/default.aspx)
We will continue to consign ourselves to the scrapheap of football failures if we embrace the direction of deliberately taking steps to lose games of football just to gain that critical, all-conquering, almighty, higher number at the draft table. The salvation and future of our team and our club lies in our attitude, our culture, our skillset, our professionalism, our sense of team - or if I combine it under one heading - 'our development'. Tanking? Smart list management? Good coaching? Call it whatever you want but cheats, rorters, bludgers and egotists all get found out eventually and all fail in the pressure cooker environment of team sports like AFL football (in life actually but that's for another day). And there is no evidence to suggest or prove that taking the 'easy' shortcut works or has ever succeeded. If you think that tanking is the way forward then go follow your Melbourne, your Carlton and enjoy all the success you have with them. Just don't embarrass yourself by trying to look me in the eye when I'm celebrating my team's victory won through the virtues of hard work, courage, honesty and team - you already know what I think of you and your cheating ways and I won't bother meeting your gaze.
-
Port winning today gives us some lee-way. Can win a game and still finish 15th.
-
I thought an article of Leigh Matthews from the AFL site this week is quite relevant to this discussion, especially when have been discussing the possibility of turning "manure into strawberry jam" and the critical need to tank for high draft picks to build a decent side. Here is what he has to say:
The sum of parts
By Leigh Matthews 7:11 AM Wed 28 July, 2010
TO BE blunt, I’ve always believed in the old saying that it’s impossible to make strawberry jam out of horse manure.
Given Collingwood have half a team of rookies and lowly ranked draft choices that have been instrumental in the Magpies' surge to the top of the AFL ladder, the effectiveness of Mick Malthouse’s coaching and development operation is reversing that well-proven theory.
And I use this analogy in the nicest possible way because the outstanding Collingwood form has some unique features.
Firstly, there is a big group of Collingwood players whose performances this season have been very good despite them not being established, proven senior players.
Looking through the side that dismantled Richmond last Saturday, I found 11 players who wouldn’t exactly cause shockwaves if they were left out of the side in the weeks ahead.
There’s Dayne Beams, Jarryd Blair, Leigh Brown, Chris Dawes, Tyson Goldsack, Ben Johnson, Tarkyn Lockyer, Brent Macaffer, Steele Sidebottom, Alan Toovey and Sharrod Wellingham.
These are players who would still be a bit nervous ahead of selection every Thursday night. That’s not to say some of these players haven’t been playing well.
Only last Saturday Brown received a vote in the 3AW Player of the Year award, as he’d done the week before. Clearly, he’s had two terrific games.
Beams has averaged 21 possessions and kicked 17 goals in 16 games, and Sidebottom 18 possessions a game for 16 goals in 16 games.
Johnson and Wellingham have averaged 21 possessions from 15 games, while Dawes, with 21 goals in 11 games, sits second on the club goalkicking list, equal with Travis Cloke and behind only Didak (29).
But what I’m saying is that these players are not necessarily permanent fixtures in the senior side and might not survive a few down weeks and still hold their spot.
I’ve always believed that while playing for your position each week may be a good motivation, it can also be quite nerve-wracking and not exactly conducive to maximising performance levels.
At Collingwood, though, this ‘living on the edge’ process seems to be working a treat.
But back to my first paragraph..
The thing that hits me the most about the Collingwood team at the moment is the unusually high number of players who have come into the AFL system with a relatively modest draft ranking.
Sure, they’ve got the normal handful of high draft selections. And by ‘high’ I mean 1-20. There’s Dale Thomas (pick No.2), Alan Didak (3), Scott Pendlebury (5), Ben Reid (8), Simon Prestigiacomo (10) and Sidebottom (11). Plus Luke Ball, who was originally taken at No.3.
Their list also includes two comparatively cheap father/son signings in Heath Shaw and Cloke, and what you might term a high-price recruit in Darren Jolly, who cost the Magpies selections No.14 and 46 in last year’s national draft.
Otherwise, it is a line-up dominated by players from humble football beginnings.
I must say I’ve always been a bit cynical when I hear clubs talking of a five-year plan. To me a month is a long time in footy, and next year is an absolute eternity away.
The process of recruiting raw talent and developing it to maximum potential is the obvious first step in any club operation.
Enormous credit must go to the Collingwood coaching and development system which has churned out a big group of players who were low-ranked horse-manure draft and rookie choices, but are producing strawberry jam performances.
With Shaw and Cloke missing from the top side last weekend, there were no less than 15 players who were drafted at 25-plus, including an extraordinary seven players who started out as rookies.
The ex-rookies are a talented list in their own right - captain Nick Maxwell, Harry O’Brien, Wellingham, Lockyer, Macaffer, Toovey and Blair.
To have seven players in the top team who started their careers as obscure rookies is quite remarkable.
Of the others, there was Dawes, taken at selection No.28, Beams (29), Leon Davis (34), Dane Swan (58), Johnson (62), Goldsack (63) and Brown (73), plus Ball, whose price tag to the Pies was selection No.30 in last year’s national draft.
As hard as it might seem to be underrated playing for the heavily publicised Magpies, there are a lot of relative young unknowns playing well above their reputation. And, oddly, there are some more high profile types not in the side. Like Jack Anthony, Nathan Brown, Brad idiot, Josh Fraser, Paul Medhurst, Shane O’Bree and Cameron Wood.
Interestingly, too, only one Collingwood player - midfielder Swan - is a certain All-Australian.
Didak might be classified as a ‘likely’ All-Australian choice, with O’Brien a possibility, but otherwise they have no genuine Team of the Year contenders.
No doubt this year Jolly, as a strong power ruckman, and Ball, as another in-close ball-winner, have been valuable additions to the Collingwood side.
The biggest improver in its own ranks is stuff Reid. Drafted at No.8 in 2006 as a highly-rated key forward, he had played only eight games in three years prior to this year. Last year he played two senior games while spending most of his time learning to play key defence in the VFL.
Obviously he did so with very good effect in what is further proof of a development process that requires young players to be given time, patience and training at a lower level to gain the necessary confidence and skill-set to be successful at the top level.
Leaving aside first-year players in terms of those who can be measured from season to season, Reid might just be the competition’s most improved, progressing from out of the team into a very competent key defender.
Collingwood started the season as one of the five clubs that I thought could win the premiership and their chances have only grown after 17 rounds. And they have got to the top with a champion team more so than a team of champions.
Therein lies that nagging doubt because to win the flag they will have to find a way to beat the mighty Geelong, who have the proven double: they are both a champion team and a team of champions.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/99099/default.aspx (http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/99099/default.aspx)
We will continue to consign ourselves to the scrapheap of football failures if we embrace the direction of deliberately taking steps to lose games of football just to gain that critical, all-conquering, almighty, higher number at the draft table. The salvation and future of our team and our club lies in our attitude, our culture, our skillset, our professionalism, our sense of team - or if I combine it under one heading - 'our development'. Tanking? Smart list management? Good coaching? Call it whatever you want but cheats, rorters, bludgers and egotists all get found out eventually and all fail in the pressure cooker environment of team sports like AFL football (in life actually but that's for another day). And there is no evidence to suggest or prove that taking the 'easy' shortcut works or has ever succeeded. If you think that tanking is the way forward then go follow your Melbourne, your Carlton and enjoy all the success you have with them. Just don't embarrass yourself by trying to look me in the eye when I'm celebrating my team's victory won through the virtues of hard work, courage, honesty and team - you already know what I think of you and your cheating ways and I won't bother meeting your gaze.
good find and well said smokey :clapping
-
As much as the Pies are winning easy at the minute against ordinary sides I'll wait until September is finished before I'm convinced about them. We've seen all this before and then they cave when it counts.
Port winning today gives us some lee-way. Can win a game and still finish 15th.
We can still finish 14th. We would need Brisbane to beat Melbourne tonight to be able to win a game and finish 15th still. The Lions are 11 points down late in the final quarter.
-
Rubbish comments! Will be cheering my guts out tomorrow against the cows. :gotigers
-
smokey - very emotive reply. You obviously feel strongly about it.
The definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Jumping up and down the ladder from between 16th to 9th, from one year to the next, for over a decade and yet expecting to become a flag contender is madness. Stringing a few wins together one season and then struggling to win more than a handful of games the next makes me sick to my very core.
So if we do manage to finish down the bottom of the ladder this year and even next and gain the raw talent we need to develop into a premiership side then don't embarass yourself by trying to look me in the eye when I'm celebrating my team's win through the virtues of hard work to draft well and develop the talent we choose, courage to take the pain of short term losses, honesty to realize that our misguidied belief as a club that winning at all costs is futile when we do not have the players to rise above mediocre and team who should always strive to win regardless of what the administration engineers. If we have success through playing the system, through making the hard decisions and not always trying to be noble when it has been our proven cause of failure for decades, don't try and look me in the eyes - I won't bother meeting your gaze...;)
There is no cap on the money spent of development or the staff acquired through off field spending so clubs such as Collingwood have an advantage over most of the restof the competition, us included. Leigh Matthews is right to point to the Collingwood side and highlight the players that appear to be playing far above their initial draft potential but he fails to finger the inequity in off-field spending too. This fund discrepency or CHEATING if you like, can not be exploited by us at the moment but the draft can.
Say what you like about the theory of engineering losses to finish down the bottom of the ladder to advantage yourself in the draft but all clubs seek to gain advantage of the systems and laws they have placed before them by the league including Collingwood, including Geelong, including Brisbane, including every team you can think off. Tanking is merely one way.
Stripes
-
No, you can't make strawberry jam from manure. But then to dismiss kids like Nason, Astbury, Webberley and Griffiths as manure just because they weren't absolute premium draft picks is pretty insulting to their ability and worth.
And the fact that we secured such promising players with the benefit of smart recruiting with mid to late-range draft picks only proves my point.
Compare this to the way the previous administration frittered away early draft picks on the likes of Tambling (4) Meyer(12) Pattison(16) Polo(20) JON (8) and Hughes. That list re-building 2004 draft was really worth finishing on the bottom for AGAIN-wasn't it????
Look, we're just going round and round in ever-decreasing circles on this one. We're just going to have to agree to disagree. But one last point is that players aren't machines. You can't just de-program them, and re-program them at the stuff of a switch. And I think it would be virtually impossible to re-build a team's self-confidence and belief after you've encouraged them to lay low for 2-3 years,taking one beating after another, while we slowly put together the kind of elite list you think is worthy of challenging the big boys.
Melbourne begs to differ :shh
When Melbourne becomes successful and wins a flag by doing it then I might be persuaded to change my mind. Until then, I will go with what I know - that tanking has never won a team a flag in the history of the AFL.
hawthorn tanked...
and besides why does tanking have to bring you a flag? tanking is there to help rebuild your list to HAVE A REALISTIC SHOT AT WINNING A FLAG. Melbourne and carlton may or may not win a flag but they'll be thereabts overthe nex few years, where will we be? jus a stuffing chance for stuffs sake, we dont even get that in 30 long years
-
smokey - very emotive reply. You obviously feel strongly about it.
What can I say Stripes, I'm an emotive person when it comes to the Tigers. ;) :gotigers
The definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Jumping up and down the ladder from between 16th to 9th, from one year to the next, for over a decade and yet expecting to become a flag contender is madness. Stringing a few wins together one season and then struggling to win more than a handful of games the next makes me sick to my very core.
Yes it is Stripes, absolute madness. That's exactly what I would call our past 30 years as we continually ignored the need to consolidate our club and succeed in the long term through professionalism, innovation, improvement, and plain old common sense, thinking instead that success was a God given right to our powerful club and that all we had to do was shut our eyes and think of Ol' Blighty. We could have had the number 1 draft pick every year for each of those 30 years and we would still be the barren laughing stock we became. Not seeing the wood for the trees makes me sick to the core.
So if we do manage to finish down the bottom of the ladder this year and even next and gain the raw talent we need to develop into a premiership side then don't embarass yourself by trying to look me in the eye when I'm celebrating my team's win through the virtues of hard work to draft well and develop the talent we choose, courage to take the pain of short term losses, honesty to realize that our misguidied belief as a club that winning at all costs is futile when we do not have the players to rise above mediocre and team who should always strive to win regardless of what the administration engineers. If we have success through playing the system, through making the hard decisions and not always trying to be noble when it has been our proven cause of failure for decades, don't try and look me in the eyes - I won't bother meeting your gaze...;)
I really don't have anything to add to this - if you think that our "proven cause of failure for decades" has been our because of our nobility or lack of playing the system then there is not a lot more I can say. Maybe re-read my comment above about wood and trees.
There is no cap on the money spent of development or the staff acquired through off field spending so clubs such as Collingwood have an advantage over most of the restof the competition, us included. Leigh Matthews is right to point to the Collingwood side and highlight the players that appear to be playing far above their initial draft potential but he fails to finger the inequity in off-field spending too. This fund discrepency or CHEATING if you like, can not be exploited by us at the moment but the draft can.
Fund discrepancy - cheating? Can't be exploited by us? What the? Last time I looked this was a professional sport played in a country run as a capitalistic democracy with no rules regarding how wealthy individual legal entities such as clubs are allowed to become. You really are a 'rules' type of person aren't you! I ask how committed to your cause you would be comrade, if Richmond is instructed to hand over a healthy percentage of it's profits to North Melbourne in order to redress some of this "cheating" imbalance in club funds? I find it laughable that you do identify one of the real prime causes of our lack of recent success and then claim that it is only based on unfairness because we have been too stupid, too unprofessional, too factional, too lazy too damn whatever to take the necessary steps to correct it and that the fault lies with the system, not the club!! Do you think therefore, that getting the next 3 or 4 number one picks will address the "cheating" financial advantage that Collingwood, Essendon, West Coast, Adelaide, Hawthorn etc have built for themselves over recent years by gaining superiority in the area of development? Hhmm, typing out those club names identifies a common thread to me - longer sustained periods of success, power and respect. Coincidence maybe? Who knows but running your club as profitably as you can and then choosing to reinvest a large part of those profits in your football department is certainly legal and it is certainly professional and it is certainly smart and it is certainly not cheating.
Say what you like about the theory of engineering losses to finish down the bottom of the ladder to advantage yourself in the draft but all clubs seek to gain advantage of the systems and laws they have placed before them by the league including Collingwood, including Geelong, including Brisbane, including every team you can think off. Tanking is merely one way.
Tanking is the way a few clubs have chosen. Until I see success and premierships delivered to those clubs by this method of cheating compromise and the subsequent due respect accorded them by the football world in general, then I can never hope to support it.
Karma. You can't see it, feel it or touch it but it bites very, very hard when you poke it with a big stick.
-
hawthorn tanked...
Really? What year(s) would that be in?
and besides why does tanking have to bring you a flag? tanking is there to help rebuild your list to HAVE A REALISTIC SHOT AT WINNING A FLAG. Melbourne and carlton may or may not win a flag but they'll be thereabts overthe nex few years, where will we be? jus a effing chance for effs sake, we dont even get that in 30 long years
Because if you are going to tank and not win a flag then I would suggest you are the biggest fool organization of all time, wasting precious time, energy and money on a proven unsuccessful outcome. I would think the risk/return figures are very heavily skewed in favour of addressing the issues that are actually proven to deliver success.
-
hawthorn tanked...
Really? What year(s) would that be in?
and besides why does tanking have to bring you a flag? tanking is there to help rebuild your list to HAVE A REALISTIC SHOT AT WINNING A FLAG. Melbourne and carlton may or may not win a flag but they'll be thereabts overthe nex few years, where will we be? jus a effing chance for effs sake, we dont even get that in 30 long years
Because if you are going to tank and not win a flag then I would suggest you are the biggest fool organization of all time, wasting precious time, energy and money on a proven unsuccessful outcome. I would think the risk/return figures are very heavily skewed in favour of addressing the issues that are actually proven to deliver success.
2004/2005 thought that was obvious?
as for your second comment, i cannot believe you are serious. You need to learn to walk before you run, how about getting the talent to be thereabts and "in the game" before starting to think premierships? At least it fast tracks them to get into a position were they can strike at a flag. Hawthorn got it all right with their development and did it quick, carlton and melbourne may not win a flag but they've assembled the talent from which to load a shot at a flag in te next few yrs which is more than can be said about our dud club!
Tanking isnt as black or white as win or lose a flag, its about giving smart clubs the opportunity to stuff improvement and put them in the mix, once there its up to coaching/development/injuries some intangibles and a little bit of luck to take you all the way
-
:lol
it seems that every side that has finished last has "tanked"
:ROTFL
-
If accessing as many early draft picks as possible to access the most talented young footballers available weren't a critical first step in the recipe to build a strong successful list then the AFL wouldn't have given the new Gold Coast franchise 9 of the first 15 picks in this year's draft and GWS the same deal in 2011 plus all the other draft concessions. Smart well resourced recruiting, player development and club/team values, professionalism and culture will be built upon and around all these top picks.
Hawthorn "tanked" in 2005 btw after finishing 2nd last in 2004. They kept their wins to under 5 by giving up a 7 goal half-time lead to us when Petts kicked the winning goal :-\. Back to back priority picks enabled them to get both Roughead and Franklin together and then Ellis who was one of their best in their premiership. Accessing more early picks via trading gave them Lewis (7) and Birchall (14). I'm sure they are regreting "tanking" now. This was this second wave of rebuilding I might add. These guys were added to a young core of Hodge (1), Mitchell, Bateman and co.
smokey it's hard for Richmond to make money to match these other clubs when we continually had a crap list from finishing ninth most years hence didn't playing finals regularly. We also have for years already subsidised other clubs with our poor stadia deals despite top 4 crowds every year for the past 45 years at the 'G. So we have already being screwed on that front thanks to the MCC taking us for granted. We won't start making mega-$$$, having 75k members etc until we get a successful side on the park playing finals regularly. Once again that comes back to first building a quality list via the draft with access to as many of the most talented kids found now at the top end of the draft.
-
hawthorn tanked...
Really? What year(s) would that be in?
2004/2005 thought that was obvious?
I would be interested to know just when in season 2004 that you think Hawthorn made the decision to tank? Would it have been around halfway through when they were on the bottom of the ladder with 2 wins from 11 games and a percentage of 75.1% or would it have been much earlier than that (remembering of course that this was the season that cost their coach his job)? It certainly couldn't have been any later because that position right there tells me that they were absolute crap anyway and didn't have to change one single thing to end up where they did. And remember that this was the year when their coach told all and sundry during the pre-season that they would "win the premiership"! If they were tanking then why did they beat us so convincingly in Round 21 and consign themselves to the 2nd pick instead of the 'coveted' 1st pick? So just when did this team sitting on the bottom of the ladder halfway through a 'premiership winning' season decide to change it's tack and deliberately lose games?
And when in 2005 exactly did they start? Remember this was Clarkson's first year in which he conducted a major cleanout of players and introduced a completely different gameplan and work ethic to a very young and inexperienced list. Sound familiar to another team currently sitting 15th who has just recently been described by many experts as the worst ever in the history of the competition? If they were tanking then why did they beat the team below them in Round 17 to effectively end their chance of finishing with the 1st pick? Tanking teams do not give up those 'prized' picks 1 or 2 places higher without a serious fight. Halfway through the season Hawthorn were 15th with 3 wins and a percentage of 96%, by season's end they were 14th with 5 wins and a percentage of 82%. Hhhmm, a young inexperienced side with a new coach learning a completely different (and unique at the time) gameplan improved it's ladder position in the 2nd half of the season despite winning less games and dropping significant percentage. Yep, some real tanking indicators right there, nothing at all to do with the reality of how capable and good they were at the time.
as for your second comment, i cannot believe you are serious. You need to learn to walk before you run, how about getting the talent to be thereabts and "in the game" before starting to think premierships? At least it fast tracks them to get into a position were they can strike at a flag. Hawthorn got it all right with their development and did it quick, carlton and melbourne may not win a flag but they've assembled the talent from which to load a shot at a flag in te next few yrs which is more than can be said about our dud club!
Tanking isnt as black or white as win or lose a flag, its about giving smart clubs the opportunity to stuff improvement and put them in the mix, once there its up to coaching/development/injuries some intangibles and a little bit of luck to take you all the way
Walk before you run? How about teaching the players you have, to walk before they run? You might find it interesting to know that in Clarkson's first 3 years in charge he turned over 21 players from his starting list. During the same 3 years Richmond turned over 24 players. Clarkson had 8 Top 20 picks in his 1st 3 years (end 04, end 05, end 06), Richmond had 7. So in spite of both clubs starting from similar ladder positions, new coaching groups, similar high draft picks and significant list cleanouts, one team went on to win a flag while the other has had zero success and not improved one iota. And you would have me believe that this was because Hawthorn supposedly tanked in 04/05? Winning flags is all about those "intangibles" you mention in passing and nothing to do with the number of high draft picks you receive - that is the reality of it. Those "intangibles" are the core of it but sadly the tanking proponents allow themselves to be blinded by the lure of the quick fix and easy road.
-
smokey it's hard for Richmond to make money to match these other clubs when we continually had a crap list from finishing ninth most years hence didn't playing finals regularly. We also have for years already subsidised other clubs with our poor stadia deals despite top 4 crowds every year for the past 45 years at the 'G. So we have already being screwed on that front thanks to the MCC taking us for granted. We won't start making mega-$$$, having 75k members etc until we get a successful side on the park playing finals regularly. Once again that comes back to first building a quality list via the draft with access to as many of the most talented kids found now at the top end of the draft.
Our lack of money is entirely of our own making and we are the only ones who can control fixing it. We have already discussed the value of having a sufficiently resourced football department and if we want that then we have to make all the moves to achieve it. Whether we are subsidizing other clubs through stadia deal is quite irrelevant - it doesn't stop other clubs from being financially responsible enough to cope with similar bad deals and still provide their football departments with ample resources. The sooner we stop blaming everything around us for our problems and looking for assistance from anyone who will give it then the better off we will be. One second spent on worrying about financial inequalities or complaining because other clubs have conducted themselves more successfully and professionally than us is another second we have to wait until the realization sinks in that there are no knights in shining armour or Good Samaritans out there coming to our rescue. If we sit back thinking that our financial salvation will come from better crowds and memberships driven by increased on field success then we will only be repeating the stupid mistakes of years gone by. Any extra crowd-driven revenue should be the unplanned and unbudgeted icing on the cake, the real long term positive changes in our financial position will come from our efforts in conducting ourselves as a viable and professional business entity with multiple strong income sources, sound investments and controlled spending mechanisms. When, and only when we devote all our energies to improving our club's position by all the means at our disposal will true improvement come.
We signed those stadia deals, we failed to recruit well, we failed to staff well, we failed to govern and manage well, we failed to coach well, we failed to play well. Us, us, us, not them, them, them. We won't start to be successful on the field until we can afford to match the other successful clubs in spending wisely on development and other critical football areas, getting and wasting more and more high draft picks obtained through tanking or sheer incompetence will not make one scrap of difference. And that is why I have warmed to March as our president in recent years. He has been resolute in his efforts to stabilize our board and our finances, increasing the spending in our football department each and every year without risking further financial hardship before he has gone about changing the football department itself. Very thankfully he has put the horse before the cart.
No-one said it would be easy to climb out of the abyss successive regimes at Richmond have put this club into. But the ONLY way to climb out and stay out is through hard work, sacrifice, honesty, transparency and professionalism in all our dealings in all areas of the club. When we regain the respect of our supporters, our opponents and ourselves then we will be on the path to strength and success, and not a moment before. Respect will not come through reliance on tanking and it will not come through reliance on financial handouts.
I try (and don't always succeed) to live my life by an ethos of "don't blame me". By that I mean that to spend even one nano-second of my time blaming something or someone else for anything that hasn't gone my way is self-defeating and a sheer waste of my much too precious time. I am responsible for every single thing - good or bad - that has happened to me in my life and only I can change what I don't like. And that is how I see it for our club.
-
:lol
it seems that every side that has finished last has "tanked"
:ROTFL
Isn't that the truth Al! I wonder if other clubs will look back on us in a few years time saying we tanked in 04, 07, 09 and 10?
-
If Hawthorn tanked in that 2005 round 21 game then so did Richmond. And Richmond didn't.
Richmond pegged back that 7 goal half-time lead. Hawthorn, again, got 7 goals up. Richmond, again, pegged it back.
Great game to be at for polar emotions during it.
As an aside, Roughead got crunched and while the ball was up the other end Richo helped him up and led him to the trainers while patting him on the back.
-
Will put an end to 5 pages of rubbish topic.
we dont tank.
very simple.
Talk and debate all you want,
-
Will put an end to 5 pages of rubbish topic.
I'll bet it doesn't and why is it a rubbish topic? I would have thought that over a long period it has been a very interesting and well debated thread on a topic very much in the public eye?
-
as it doesnt happen at Punt Rd so why bother discussing it.
look how Carlton is travelling. move on
-
hawthorn tanked...
Really? What year(s) would that be in?
2004/2005 thought that was obvious?
I would be interested to know just when in season 2004 that you think Hawthorn made the decision to tank? Would it have been around halfway through when they were on the bottom of the ladder with 2 wins from 11 games and a percentage of 75.1% or would it have been much earlier than that (remembering of course that this was the season that cost their coach his job)? It certainly couldn't have been any later because that position right there tells me that they were absolute crap anyway and didn't have to change one single thing to end up where they did. And remember that this was the year when their coach told all and sundry during the pre-season that they would "win the premiership"! If they were tanking then why did they beat us so convincingly in Round 21 and consign themselves to the 2nd pick instead of the 'coveted' 1st pick? So just when did this team sitting on the bottom of the ladder halfway through a 'premiership winning' season decide to change it's tack and deliberately lose games?
And when in 2005 exactly did they start? Remember this was Clarkson's first year in which he conducted a major cleanout of players and introduced a completely different gameplan and work ethic to a very young and inexperienced list. Sound familiar to another team currently sitting 15th who has just recently been described by many experts as the worst ever in the history of the competition? If they were tanking then why did they beat the team below them in Round 17 to effectively end their chance of finishing with the 1st pick? Tanking teams do not give up those 'prized' picks 1 or 2 places higher without a serious fight. Halfway through the season Hawthorn were 15th with 3 wins and a percentage of 96%, by season's end they were 14th with 5 wins and a percentage of 82%. Hhhmm, a young inexperienced side with a new coach learning a completely different (and unique at the time) gameplan improved it's ladder position in the 2nd half of the season despite winning less games and dropping significant percentage. Yep, some real tanking indicators right there, nothing at all to do with the reality of how capable and good they were at the time.
as for your second comment, i cannot believe you are serious. You need to learn to walk before you run, how about getting the talent to be thereabts and "in the game" before starting to think premierships? At least it fast tracks them to get into a position were they can strike at a flag. Hawthorn got it all right with their development and did it quick, carlton and melbourne may not win a flag but they've assembled the talent from which to load a shot at a flag in te next few yrs which is more than can be said about our dud club!
Tanking isnt as black or white as win or lose a flag, its about giving smart clubs the opportunity to stuff improvement and put them in the mix, once there its up to coaching/development/injuries some intangibles and a little bit of luck to take you all the way
Walk before you run? How about teaching the players you have, to walk before they run? You might find it interesting to know that in Clarkson's first 3 years in charge he turned over 21 players from his starting list. During the same 3 years Richmond turned over 24 players. Clarkson had 8 Top 20 picks in his 1st 3 years (end 04, end 05, end 06), Richmond had 7. So in spite of both clubs starting from similar ladder positions, new coaching groups, similar high draft picks and significant list cleanouts, one team went on to win a flag while the other has had zero success and not improved one iota. And you would have me believe that this was because Hawthorn supposedly tanked in 04/05? Winning flags is all about those "intangibles" you mention in passing and nothing to do with the number of high draft picks you receive - that is the reality of it. Those "intangibles" are the core of it but sadly the tanking proponents allow themselves to be blinded by the lure of the quick fix and easy road.
about hawthorn in 04 and 05, in a nutshell they realised halfway through the season they didn't have the cattle to win a flag, so they took action. People kept saying that we beat hawthorn to Walace but that is rubbish, they had a clear plan in place to load up on cattle, take short term pain for long term gain and boy did they get that right, they wanted Clarko bc his philosophies fit their plans. Hawthorn is a perfect example of a club that knew where they were at, what they needed and milked the system to get it. A deluded club like ours where we finish bottom in 04 and then again in 09 shows we didnt embrace it or weren't willing to face up to the fact tat we just didnt have the cattle. Yes we got 5 top 20 picks in 04 and if we had of got them right I'm sure we wouldnt be in this predicament but fact is we ddnt get them right so need to get it right now.
-
:lol
it seems that every side that has finished last has "tanked"
:ROTFL
Isn't that the truth Al! I wonder if other clubs will look back on us in a few years time saying we tanked in 04, 07, 09 and 10?
No they won't because here's the difference..... Notice how clubs like carlton and melboure did it 2-3 years in a row making sure they won less than the required games to get a couple of PP's including an extra top end draft pick in year 2? We on the other hand win more than 4 last season and do it again this season. You just have to lol a the stupidity :banghead, tell me again what possible benefit did we get out of winning more than 4 gams last season? was it the fact we blew a golden gimme opportunity to land a player like BASTINAC for free? Looking at where we are at this season on 5 wins, whts the difference if we finished on 4 wins and land picks 4 and 6? I can guarantee Hawthorn, Carlton and melboure would have manufactured it to turn out this way, I mean we are in rebuild mode anyhow for FFS and will only win 10-11 games over these 2 seasons anyhow, so just make it 8 and get yourself an extra couple of potential A-graders. End of issue and then we have the cattle to start moving on up the ladder once and for all.
-
:lol
it seems that every side that has finished last has "tanked"
:ROTFL
Isn't that the truth Al! I wonder if other clubs will look back on us in a few years time saying we tanked in 04, 07, 09 and 10?
No they won't because here's the difference..... Notice how clubs like carlton and melboure did it 2-3 years in a row making sure they won less than the required games to get a couple of PP's including an extra top end draft pick in year 2? We on the other hand win more than 4 last seasonand do it again thi season. You just have to lol a thestupidity, tell me again what possible benefit did we get out of winnin more than 4 gams last season? was it the fact we blew a golden gimme opportunity to land a player like BASTINAC for free? Looking at where we are at this season on 5 wins, whts the difference i we finished on 4 wins and land picks 4 and 6? I can guarantee Hawthorn, Carlton and melboure would have manufactured it to turn out this way, I mean we are in rebuild moe anyhow for FFS and wil only win 10-11 games over these 2 season so just make it 8 and get yourself an extra couple of potential A-graders. End of isse ad then we have the cattle to start moving on up the ladder once and for all.
Great post. FWIW TM i think if Dimma was our coach last year, in the last uncompromised draft for a few years we would have seen a different win/loss ratio that what we saw under Wallet.
I have no doubt that he would have had the brains to engineer a loss against the Bombers and demons. No doubt.
Leather face was holding onto what little hope he had left to hold the position next year therefore trying to win at all costs.
-
hawthorn tanked...
Really? What year(s) would that be in?
2004/2005 thought that was obvious?
I would be interested to know just when in season 2004 that you think Hawthorn made the decision to tank? Would it have been around halfway through when they were on the bottom of the ladder with 2 wins from 11 games and a percentage of 75.1% or would it have been much earlier than that (remembering of course that this was the season that cost their coach his job)? It certainly couldn't have been any later because that position right there tells me that they were absolute crap anyway and didn't have to change one single thing to end up where they did. And remember that this was the year when their coach told all and sundry during the pre-season that they would "win the premiership"! If they were tanking then why did they beat us so convincingly in Round 21 and consign themselves to the 2nd pick instead of the 'coveted' 1st pick? So just when did this team sitting on the bottom of the ladder halfway through a 'premiership winning' season decide to change it's tack and deliberately lose games?
And when in 2005 exactly did they start? Remember this was Clarkson's first year in which he conducted a major cleanout of players and introduced a completely different gameplan and work ethic to a very young and inexperienced list. Sound familiar to another team currently sitting 15th who has just recently been described by many experts as the worst ever in the history of the competition? If they were tanking then why did they beat the team below them in Round 17 to effectively end their chance of finishing with the 1st pick? Tanking teams do not give up those 'prized' picks 1 or 2 places higher without a serious fight. Halfway through the season Hawthorn were 15th with 3 wins and a percentage of 96%, by season's end they were 14th with 5 wins and a percentage of 82%. Hhhmm, a young inexperienced side with a new coach learning a completely different (and unique at the time) gameplan improved it's ladder position in the 2nd half of the season despite winning less games and dropping significant percentage. Yep, some real tanking indicators right there, nothing at all to do with the reality of how capable and good they were at the time.
as for your second comment, i cannot believe you are serious. You need to learn to walk before you run, how about getting the talent to be thereabts and "in the game" before starting to think premierships? At least it fast tracks them to get into a position were they can strike at a flag. Hawthorn got it all right with their development and did it quick, carlton and melbourne may not win a flag but they've assembled the talent from which to load a shot at a flag in te next few yrs which is more than can be said about our dud club!
Tanking isnt as black or white as win or lose a flag, its about giving smart clubs the opportunity to stuff improvement and put them in the mix, once there its up to coaching/development/injuries some intangibles and a little bit of luck to take you all the way
Walk before you run? How about teaching the players you have, to walk before they run? You might find it interesting to know that in Clarkson's first 3 years in charge he turned over 21 players from his starting list. During the same 3 years Richmond turned over 24 players. Clarkson had 8 Top 20 picks in his 1st 3 years (end 04, end 05, end 06), Richmond had 7. So in spite of both clubs starting from similar ladder positions, new coaching groups, similar high draft picks and significant list cleanouts, one team went on to win a flag while the other has had zero success and not improved one iota. And you would have me believe that this was because Hawthorn supposedly tanked in 04/05? Winning flags is all about those "intangibles" you mention in passing and nothing to do with the number of high draft picks you receive - that is the reality of it. Those "intangibles" are the core of it but sadly the tanking proponents allow themselves to be blinded by the lure of the quick fix and easy road.
about hawthorn in 04 and 05, in a nutshell they realised halfway through the season they didn't have the cattle to win a flag, so they took action. People kept saying that we beat hawthorn to Walace but that is rubbish, they had a clear plan in place to load up on cattle, take short term pain for long term gain and boy did they get that right, they wanted Clarko bc his philosophies fit their plans. Hawthorn is a perfect example of a club that knew where they were at, what they needed and milked the system to get it. A deluded club like ours where we finish bottom in 04 and then again in 09 shows we didnt embrace it or weren't willing to face up to the fact tat we just didnt have the cattle. Yes we got 5 top 20 picks in 04 and if we had of got them right I'm sure we wouldnt be in this predicament but fact is we ddnt get them right so need to get it right now.
Is that halfway through the 04 or the 05 season they realised tony?
-
Great post. FWIW TM i think if Dimma was our coach last year, in the last uncompromised draft for a few years we would have seen a different win/loss ratio that what we saw under Wallet.
I have no doubt that he would have had the brains to engineer a loss against the Bombers and demons. No doubt.
Leather face was holding onto what little hope he had left to hold the position next year therefore trying to win at all costs.
I have no doubt that engineering a loss is not something in Hardwick's makeup. He comes across as having too much integrity to lay down like a mongrel dog.
-
hawthorn tanked...
Really? What year(s) would that be in?
2004/2005 thought that was obvious?
I would be interested to know just when in season 2004 that you think Hawthorn made the decision to tank? Would it have been around halfway through when they were on the bottom of the ladder with 2 wins from 11 games and a percentage of 75.1% or would it have been much earlier than that (remembering of course that this was the season that cost their coach his job)? It certainly couldn't have been any later because that position right there tells me that they were absolute crap anyway and didn't have to change one single thing to end up where they did. And remember that this was the year when their coach told all and sundry during the pre-season that they would "win the premiership"! If they were tanking then why did they beat us so convincingly in Round 21 and consign themselves to the 2nd pick instead of the 'coveted' 1st pick? So just when did this team sitting on the bottom of the ladder halfway through a 'premiership winning' season decide to change it's tack and deliberately lose games?
And when in 2005 exactly did they start? Remember this was Clarkson's first year in which he conducted a major cleanout of players and introduced a completely different gameplan and work ethic to a very young and inexperienced list. Sound familiar to another team currently sitting 15th who has just recently been described by many experts as the worst ever in the history of the competition? If they were tanking then why did they beat the team below them in Round 17 to effectively end their chance of finishing with the 1st pick? Tanking teams do not give up those 'prized' picks 1 or 2 places higher without a serious fight. Halfway through the season Hawthorn were 15th with 3 wins and a percentage of 96%, by season's end they were 14th with 5 wins and a percentage of 82%. Hhhmm, a young inexperienced side with a new coach learning a completely different (and unique at the time) gameplan improved it's ladder position in the 2nd half of the season despite winning less games and dropping significant percentage. Yep, some real tanking indicators right there, nothing at all to do with the reality of how capable and good they were at the time.
as for your second comment, i cannot believe you are serious. You need to learn to walk before you run, how about getting the talent to be thereabts and "in the game" before starting to think premierships? At least it fast tracks them to get into a position were they can strike at a flag. Hawthorn got it all right with their development and did it quick, carlton and melbourne may not win a flag but they've assembled the talent from which to load a shot at a flag in te next few yrs which is more than can be said about our dud club!
Tanking isnt as black or white as win or lose a flag, its about giving smart clubs the opportunity to stuff improvement and put them in the mix, once there its up to coaching/development/injuries some intangibles and a little bit of luck to take you all the way
Walk before you run? How about teaching the players you have, to walk before they run? You might find it interesting to know that in Clarkson's first 3 years in charge he turned over 21 players from his starting list. During the same 3 years Richmond turned over 24 players. Clarkson had 8 Top 20 picks in his 1st 3 years (end 04, end 05, end 06), Richmond had 7. So in spite of both clubs starting from similar ladder positions, new coaching groups, similar high draft picks and significant list cleanouts, one team went on to win a flag while the other has had zero success and not improved one iota. And you would have me believe that this was because Hawthorn supposedly tanked in 04/05? Winning flags is all about those "intangibles" you mention in passing and nothing to do with the number of high draft picks you receive - that is the reality of it. Those "intangibles" are the core of it but sadly the tanking proponents allow themselves to be blinded by the lure of the quick fix and easy road.
about hawthorn in 04 and 05, in a nutshell they realised halfway through the season they didn't have the cattle to win a flag, so they took action. People kept saying that we beat hawthorn to Walace but that is rubbish, they had a clear plan in place to load up on cattle, take short term pain for long term gain and boy did they get that right, they wanted Clarko bc his philosophies fit their plans. Hawthorn is a perfect example of a club that knew where they were at, what they needed and milked the system to get it. A deluded club like ours where we finish bottom in 04 and then again in 09 shows we didnt embrace it or weren't willing to face up to the fact tat we just didnt have the cattle. Yes we got 5 top 20 picks in 04 and if we had of got them right I'm sure we wouldnt be in this predicament but fact is we ddnt get them right so need to get it right now.
Is that halfway through the 04 or the 05 season they realised tony?
04 season.They thought they were finals bound, was a huge shock to the system and they quickly took action and starting putting in place a plan that would net them their next flag. Real flag chasing clubs with the right quality players don't ever capitulate like that when things are going badly, you can go 2 ways from there, if you know you are a victim of circumstance (ie injury)and have the cattle u do what adelaide did this season and fight back or you do what Hawthorn and melbourne did - that is take advantage of the system to stock up on the required talent to give yourself a shot at winning one.
-
So your saying that half through the season when they were 2 wins from 11 games they decided to tank?
So for the first 11 weeks they were just poo, but then for the rest of the year they were deliberately losing?
How did they convince the coach to take action that would lead to him losing his job 6 weeks later?
At the half way point of that season Richmond had 4 wins and did not win another game for the year, in which time the hawks won another two games to climb above us on the ladder, both of which came after the change of coach.
Yet Hawthorn tanked and Richmond didn't?
-
So your saying that half through the season when they were 2 wins from 11 games they decided to tank?
So for the first 11 weeks they were just poo, but then for the rest of the year they were deliberately losing?
How did they convince the coach to take action that would lead to him losing his job 6 weeks later?
At the half way point of that season Richmond had 4 wins and did not win another game for the year, in which time the hawks won another two games to climb above us on the ladder, both of which came after the change of coach.
Yet Hawthorn tanked and Richmond didn't?
You're being a little naive al. Whether you want to believe it or not some clubs at some stage of the season make a call. Never will players be asked to give less than 100% effort, rarely will coaches be asked to categorically throw a game(but does and can happen occassionally) but what does happen is the directive from the top is clear: We are now in development mode, wins/losses are irrelevant. Throw players around, play the youngsters ahead of senior players, which compromises your chances of winning, easy as that. Schwab was deadman walking, they didn't need to convince him he was never going to coach them in 2005 not nce the club had come to the realisation that this group of players was NOT goingto win them a flag.
-
There's nothing naive about it tony. They are legitimate questions to the claims you made.
Do you have legitimate answers?
-
There's nothing naive about it tony. They are legitimate questions to the claims you made.
Do you have legitimate answers?
i thought i answered it...
they made a call halfway through the season when the brutal truth became obvious to the board - that the HFC in its present form was not going to deliver a premiership, hence a new plan was formulated... schwab was a goner once they decided to go down this path. Yes they won a couple more games but they could afford to, anything more would have been silly. The fact hawthrn continued down this road the following season and we didnt shows the different paths both sides took, they tanked 2 years we didnt bc we were deluded enough to think we had the cattle.
-
You havn't anwered any of these questions?
So your saying that half through the season when they were 2 wins from 11 games they decided to tank?
So for the first 11 weeks they were just poo, but then for the rest of the year they were deliberately losing?
How did they convince the coach to take action that would lead to him losing his job 6 weeks later?
At the half way point of that season Richmond had 4 wins and did not win another game for the year, in which time the hawks won another two games to climb above us on the ladder, both of which came after the change of coach.
Yet Hawthorn tanked and Richmond didn't?
-
You havn't anwered any of these questions?
So your saying that half through the season when they were 2 wins from 11 games they decided to tank?
So for the first 11 weeks they were just poo, but then for the rest of the year they were deliberately losing?
How did they convince the coach to take action that would lead to him losing his job 6 weeks later?
At the half way point of that season Richmond had 4 wins and did not win another game for the year, in which time the hawks won another two games to climb above us on the ladder, both of which came after the change of coach.
Yet Hawthorn tanked and Richmond didn't?
read it again al, i answered them
-
Carlon got done for cheating.
taking away the draft picks for many years helped them get the 3 number one picks.
not really tanking
as it doesnt happen at Punt Rd so why bother discussing it.
look how Carlton is travelling. move on
-
Carlon got done for cheating.
taking away the draft picks for many years helped them get the 3 number one picks.
not really tanking
Coming into the 07 season, the AFL changed the rules so that the team that finished bottom the year before (Carlton) would get the no.1 pick if they didn't win more than 4 games, irrespective of who finished bottom that year (us).
Carlton lay down like dead dogs for half a season to steal our rightful no.1 pick. Having a 2nd top 4 pick allowed them to swap it away to secure Judd as well. Carlton definitely tanked.
-
Our lack of money is entirely of our own making and we are the only ones who can control fixing it. We have already discussed the value of having a sufficiently resourced football department and if we want that then we have to make all the moves to achieve it. Whether we are subsidizing other clubs through stadia deal is quite irrelevant - it doesn't stop other clubs from being financially responsible enough to cope with similar bad deals and still provide their football departments with ample resources. The sooner we stop blaming everything around us for our problems and looking for assistance from anyone who will give it then the better off we will be. One second spent on worrying about financial inequalities or complaining because other clubs have conducted themselves more successfully and professionally than us is another second we have to wait until the realization sinks in that there are no knights in shining armour or Good Samaritans out there coming to our rescue. If we sit back thinking that our financial salvation will come from better crowds and memberships driven by increased on field success then we will only be repeating the stupid mistakes of years gone by. Any extra crowd-driven revenue should be the unplanned and unbudgeted icing on the cake, the real long term positive changes in our financial position will come from our efforts in conducting ourselves as a viable and professional business entity with multiple strong income sources, sound investments and controlled spending mechanisms. When, and only when we devote all our energies to improving our club's position by all the means at our disposal will true improvement come.
We signed those stadia deals, we failed to recruit well, we failed to staff well, we failed to govern and manage well, we failed to coach well, we failed to play well. Us, us, us, not them, them, them. We won't start to be successful on the field until we can afford to match the other successful clubs in spending wisely on development and other critical football areas, getting and wasting more and more high draft picks obtained through tanking or sheer incompetence will not make one scrap of difference. And that is why I have warmed to March as our president in recent years. He has been resolute in his efforts to stabilize our board and our finances, increasing the spending in our football department each and every year without risking further financial hardship before he has gone about changing the football department itself. Very thankfully he has put the horse before the cart.
No-one said it would be easy to climb out of the abyss successive regimes at Richmond have put this club into. But the ONLY way to climb out and stay out is through hard work, sacrifice, honesty, transparency and professionalism in all our dealings in all areas of the club. When we regain the respect of our supporters, our opponents and ourselves then we will be on the path to strength and success, and not a moment before. Respect will not come through reliance on tanking and it will not come through reliance on financial handouts.
I try (and don't always succeed) to live my life by an ethos of "don't blame me". By that I mean that to spend even one nano-second of my time blaming something or someone else for anything that hasn't gone my way is self-defeating and a sheer waste of my much too precious time. I am responsible for every single thing - good or bad - that has happened to me in my life and only I can change what I don't like. And that is how I see it for our club.
I only mentioned the poor stadia deals in response to you smokey asking Stripes or TM how would we like it if Richmond had to subsidise North as part of the AFL handing out handouts. I was just pointing out we already are.
Being pro-tanking is not blaming everyone else for the mess Richmond has been in for the past 30 years btw. Quite the opposite in fact as we want to use the existing draft system perfectly legally, with its priority picks designed to help bottom clubs improve their playing lists, so Richmond can improve more quickly as a club and become successful off our own back. You ask for professionalism yet professionalism is squeezing every ounce out of every legal means available to become the best - be it exploiting healthy/wealthy finances, sports science, maximising recruiting resources, exploiting the draft system, whatever to gain an advantage over all the other clubs. Not sure how anyone can say exploiting the first three of those is acting as a professional club while exploiting the draft system perfectly legally is classed as "cheating" ???. They are all legal means and all clubs have and would use them.
getting and wasting more and more high draft picks obtained through tanking or sheer incompetence will not make one scrap of difference.
Who says we're going to waste more and more high draft picks anymore. Martin and Cotchin are recent top 3 picks. Hardly a waste of high picks. Even if that were true about wasting high picks as it was in the past that statement makes no sense whatsoever as if we are still stupid enough to waste high draft picks where the better kids are then clearly the lower poorer quality picks will most certainly be wasted as well. At least high picks have more certainty nowdays given the vast sophisticated and superior methods and statistics used.
The thing is we've finally now put decent resources into our recruiting department so why deprive our recruiters now of access to a greater and higher quality draft pool just for the short-term thrill of a few meaningless win(s) that are forgotten about as soon the next season comes around. That's been the problem at Richmond for so long. Never having the foresight to see the big picture beyond the current season and in the past even beyond the next match where a cheap win covered up the cracks for another week before being exposed so easily again and the club imploding :P. We are in rebuilding mode. That means we need to aim for a strong quality maturing list by 2013. 2010 is just a stepping stone on that path. Wins/losses aren't a priority. Having another top 20 pick last year plus two picks inside the top 6 this year would've accelerated our ability to rebuild the list with quality given our player development has also improved. Too me it's just so obviously playing the odds. A choice of a top 20 and top 6 picks or the two late picks you're left with by missing out on priority picks? It's a no brainer and a lost opportunity!
-
as it doesnt happen at Punt Rd so why bother discussing it.
look how Carlton is travelling. move on
Carlton couldn't and can't make up their mind whether they are in rebuild mode or finals mode. They gave up too much for Judd in hindsight and then stupidly topped up with McLean for pick 12 and guys like Hadley and Chris Johnson. They really need Henderson to come on as they have no tall forward targets to kick to when under pressure and to straighten them up. No guarantee Kreuzer will be 100% right next year coming back from an ACL. Hopefully we gain some sweet revenge come Thursday night, round 1 next year when the 4 points will matter to us.
-
No they won't because here's the difference..... Notice how clubs like carlton and melboure did it 2-3 years in a row making sure they won less than the required games to get a couple of PP's including an extra top end draft pick in year 2? We on the other hand win more than 4 last season and do it again this season. You just have to lol a the stupidity :banghead, tell me again what possible benefit did we get out of winning more than 4 gams last season? was it the fact we blew a golden gimme opportunity to land a player like BASTINAC for free? Looking at where we are at this season on 5 wins, whts the difference if we finished on 4 wins and land picks 4 and 6? I can guarantee Hawthorn, Carlton and melboure would have manufactured it to turn out this way, I mean we are in rebuild mode anyhow for FFS and will only win 10-11 games over these 2 seasons anyhow, so just make it 8 and get yourself an extra couple of potential A-graders. End of issue and then we have the cattle to start moving on up the ladder once and for all.
Well said TM :clapping
-
as it doesnt happen at Punt Rd so why bother discussing it.
look how Carlton is travelling. move on
Hopefully we gain some sweet revenge come Thursday night, round 1 next year when the 4 points will matter to us.
Rubbish.Hopefully we beat Carlton and Melbourne over the next two weeks, and not only have the pleasure of kicking them both out of finals contention, but proving once and for all that despite all their tanking we still have the better list.
-
Tanking or no Tanking if you don't develop players properly and have decent list management you go nowhere.
Saints tank and with a side that lacks or has no pace, looks thin.
Carlton develope no forward line around Fev, thus have no forward line and will go nowhere.
You can tank all you want but if you don't a) get your picks right b) draft well late in the draft and develop C and D grade talent into B grade talent you'll go nowhere.
-
A bit like the chicken and the egg debate Pope - which is the more important the drafting or the development. I say both. You need the talent first through the draft and then you need to teach them. Sounds simple but as history has shown us it is far from it. First you have to draft well with depth in mind and potential as a priority. Then you have to first educate the players in the fundamentals/non-negotiables that are the difference between a average battler and a good AFL player. Beyond that the game plan, structures and team rules must be drilled into the player.
So foremost you need the talent to work with and to achieve that you need to draft well. A good player can be developed into a very good player and a very good player into a excellent player but a poor player can't be developed much further than average regarless of the time and quality education invested into them. Collingwood has been excellent at developing what they have got because of the sheer amount of money they have to invest in development and facilities. Similiarly, few sides have the copious amount of recruiters Collingwood has either to use the draft to the best ability they can. We have only just joined the rest of the field in both area thiyear.
So, quality raw talent and young players of character is the first step. Developing is next.
Stripes
-
We're back down to 15th - pick 6.
-
Yep it looks like we'll end up with either pick 6 or 8.
West Coast odds on for the wooden spoon after losing at home to Brisbane ::). Guess who wants a priority pick.
-
whoever lost that game was always going to be accused of tanking :whistle
-
Was hoping for a draw in that game
-
whoever lost that game was always going to be accused of tanking :whistle
Brisbane had nothing to play for; the Eagles however would've lost the PP if they had won.
-
whoever lost that game was always going to be accused of tanking :whistle
Brisbane had nothing to play for; the Eagles however would've lost the PP if they had won.
so Mitch Brown deliberately fell over and the umpire was an eagles fan!
-
whoever lost that game was always going to be accused of tanking :whistle
Brisbane had nothing to play for; the Eagles however would've lost the PP if they had won.
so Mitch Brown deliberately fell over and the umpire was an eagles fan!
Well Jordie didn't deliberately kick that goal last year to do Melbourne a draft favour but that didn't mean the Dees weren't tanking and the coaching staff weren't making dodgy moves trying to lose that game. Melbourne sure ain't regretting that decision now nor has losing over the past few years installed a losing mentality in the players as anti-tankers like the claim. The Dees have used the draft system to the max. to build a talented young list and are now on the way up. Too bad we miss out on a top 20 and then a top 4 draft pick for a measely 3.5 irrelevant extra wins over 2 years :P.
-
Well Jordie didn't deliberately kick that goal last year to do Melbourne a draft favour but that didn't mean the Dees weren't tanking and the coaching staff weren't making dodgy moves trying to lose that game. Melbourne sure ain't regretting that decision now nor has losing over the past few years installed a losing mentality in the players as anti-tankers like the claim. The Dees have used the draft system to the max. to build a talented young list and are now on the way up. Too bad we miss out on a top 20 and then a top 4 draft pick for a measely 3.5 irrelevant extra wins over 2 years :P.
Nonsense. If you make a "decision" to tank, and then leave everything on the boot of an opposition player, how committed to tanking are you?
Melbourne's re-emergence has been on the back of good drafting, courageous trading (or at least more courageous than us) good coaching and great board management.
-
Well Jordie didn't deliberately kick that goal last year to do Melbourne a draft favour but that didn't mean the Dees weren't tanking and the coaching staff weren't making dodgy moves trying to lose that game. Melbourne sure ain't regretting that decision now nor has losing over the past few years installed a losing mentality in the players as anti-tankers like the claim. The Dees have used the draft system to the max. to build a talented young list and are now on the way up. Too bad we miss out on a top 20 and then a top 4 draft pick for a measely 3.5 irrelevant extra wins over 2 years :P.
Nonsense. If you make a "decision" to tank, and then leave everything on the boot of an opposition player, how committed to tanking are you?
Melbourne's re-emergence has been on the back of good drafting, courageous trading (or at least more courageous than us) good coaching and great board management.
Melbourne had players out of position all over the field and were resting their best ball users for the last portion of the game. The vision of their coach in the dieing minutes when they were on top was angry and upset and he actually left the box before Jordy took the mark and kicked the goal such was his disgust. The Melbourne players were fighting for the win despite the coaches and administrations efforts.
The sad fact is we were desperate to win that game yet only won by a kick after the siren against a team which was coached to lose. Who desperved the priority pick more then. :banghead
We just don't play the system while up and coming teams such as the Dees have and will be ahead of us as a result for years to come. At least we'll have our pride though.... :help
Stripes
-
Well Jordie didn't deliberately kick that goal last year to do Melbourne a draft favour but that didn't mean the Dees weren't tanking and the coaching staff weren't making dodgy moves trying to lose that game. Melbourne sure ain't regretting that decision now nor has losing over the past few years installed a losing mentality in the players as anti-tankers like the claim. The Dees have used the draft system to the max. to build a talented young list and are now on the way up. Too bad we miss out on a top 20 and then a top 4 draft pick for a measely 3.5 irrelevant extra wins over 2 years :P.
Nonsense. If you make a "decision" to tank, and then leave everything on the boot of an opposition player, how committed to tanking are you?
Melbourne's re-emergence has been on the back of good drafting, courageous trading (or at least more courageous than us) good coaching and great board management.
Melbourne had players out of position all over the field and were resting their best ball users for the last portion of the game. The vision of their coach in the dieing minutes when they were on top was angry and upset and he actually left the box before Jordy took the mark and kicked the goal such was his disgust. The Melbourne players were fighting for the win despite the coaches and administrations efforts.
The sad fact is we were desperate to win that game yet only won by a kick after the siren against a team which was coached to lose. Who desperved the priority pick more then. :banghead
We just don't play the system while up and coming teams such as the Dees have and will be ahead of us as a result for years to come. At least we'll have our pride though.... :help
I don't think we even kept our pride that day knowing Melbourne did all they could to lose the game that day. The lack of emotion from Craig Cameron and Rawlings standing up in the coaches box as Jordie's kick went through for a goal pretty much summed it up for me. I know I've never felt so embarrassed after a win while Demon fans were fist pumping and singing our theme song :P.
I do agree with one thing FFV said. Melbourne were smart at trading (McLean for pick 11). Unfortunately for us other clubs haven't rated any of our players anywhere near worth a first round pick outside of the few quality footballers that were our untouchables. It would be very handy for us if there are some clubs out there this year still very desperate for a key defender at any cost.
-
The Melbourne win cost us nothing. Absolutely nothing. In fact, it's quite possible if we had lost, right now people would be spewing that we picked trengove while Martin carved it up for Freo.
-
The Melbourne win cost us nothing. Absolutely nothing. In fact, it's quite possible if we had lost, right now people would be spewing that we picked trengove while Martin carved it up for Freo.
Thank you for confirming that Al.
You know Mighty Tige's I caught up with our mutual friend straight after the Melbourne game last week, and she and her little clique were still grumbling that that win last year had cost us a priority pick. I tried to explain for the 1,000th time that we'd already blown it by beating Essendon, but was howled down by the majority.
I wish you'd been at the Rowena Parade Milk Bar with me last Sunday arvo Al :lol
-
The Melbourne win cost us nothing. Absolutely nothing. In fact, it's quite possible if we had lost, right now people would be spewing that we picked trengove while Martin carved it up for Freo.
The win against Melbourne also didn't actually hand them the two picks either, it meant that they could still beat Freo and get them though
If we'd have lost, then Melbourne would have had to tank against Freo in Melbourne, which would have been "interesting"
-
I do agree with one thing FFV said. Melbourne were smart at trading (McLean for pick 11).
Let's not kid ourselves that Melbourne's current resurgence has anything to do with tanking. From a Melbourne supporter:
1) Grimes - trade for Johnstone
2) Jamar - been on the list for a long time now
3) frawley - a Daniher draftee at 12
4) Sylvia - picked up in 04
Bruce
Green
Mcdonald
MacDonald - trade
Bate and Dunn - Daniher draftees
Garland and warnock late pick and rookie
Jones - Daniher Draftee
the list goes on
Morton has not played much this year
Watts is developing
Jurrah was a rookie
as was Davey
Moloney a trade
Gysberts - trade for Mclean
then that only really leaves Scully and Trengove, and Trengove has missed some footy too.
Clearly Melbourne's improvement is attributable to things other than tanking: maybe drilling a game plan into them as much as possible is the most important? I think so.
Keep in mind that every single coach will tell you that the most important thing for a young side to do is play games and commit to and learn the game plan. There are only 22 opportunities to do that in serious competition each year. That's not many. It is vital that young players learn the game plan layer by layer, until each layer becomes second nature before beginning the next layer. It is pure folly to suggest that teams should start tinkering with that learning process 3, 4, 5, 6 or even (as some suggest) 10 games out from the end of a season by shifting players into unfamiliar positions or deliberately unbalancing sides or faking injuries to players. You might consider it in the last game, if it meant picking up an extra top 3 pick, but to suggest that throwing away these teaching opportunities is worth moving from pick 8 to pick 4 or 6 or whatever, is madness. That isn't "playing the system" or being "professional", its being negligently wasteful.
On the other hand, the preseason has become so crucial to the development of each player, and the team, that it is just good management to put players like Tambling into surgery or Foley and Cotchin into the warehouse now. If they have yet another interrupted preseason, we'll be talking about tanking again next season, after round 12. ::)
-
Well said FFV. Maybe way too much logic, fact and common sense for some though. :clapping
-
We all shouldn't get too excited by Melbourne yet anyway. They haven't done anything really. They could be just having a Richmond 2008 false dawn season for all we know.
-
We all shouldn't get too excited by Melbourne yet anyway. They haven't done anything really. They could be just having a Richmond 2008 false dawn season for all we know.
I agree, I think Melbourne still have a few "Bowden" type cameo players on their list that only pop their heads up when they really have to or at contract renewal time. Green, Bruce & Sylvia are just three examples. I think we have gotten rid of most of ours or are about to. Morton was heading that way but has improved substantially in recent weeks and Nahas is kind of a Mr Cameo.Tucky was like that last year but this year has really pulled up his socks.
-
We all shouldn't get too excited by Melbourne yet anyway. They haven't done anything really. They could be just having a Richmond 2008 false dawn season for all we know.
They are about to lose 2 very influential veterans that will take them a while to replace - Bruce and McDonald. Their 2nd tier (~27 yo) that will move on to replace those veterans are from the group of Davey, MacDonald, Miller, Moloney, Rivers and Warnock - hardly a collective of hard working, A-grade mids likely to strike fear into the heart of the opposition and adequately fill the shoes of those retiring. Add to that Jamar and Johnson both turn 30 in the next couple of years and at that point ruckmen are always prone to becoming less effective. Melbourne need to succeed much sooner than it might look at face value if they are to get the most out of this current group.
-
We need all draft picks we can get..
I thought an article of Leigh Matthews from the AFL site this week is quite relevant to this discussion, especially when have been discussing the possibility of turning "manure into strawberry jam" and the critical need to tank for high draft picks to build a decent side. Here is what he has to say:
The sum of parts
By Leigh Matthews 7:11 AM Wed 28 July, 2010
TO BE blunt, I’ve always believed in the old saying that it’s impossible to make strawberry jam out of horse manure.
Given Collingwood have half a team of rookies and lowly ranked draft choices that have been instrumental in the Magpies' surge to the top of the AFL ladder, the effectiveness of Mick Malthouse’s coaching and development operation is reversing that well-proven theory.
And I use this analogy in the nicest possible way because the outstanding Collingwood form has some unique features.
Firstly, there is a big group of Collingwood players whose performances this season have been very good despite them not being established, proven senior players.
Looking through the side that dismantled Richmond last Saturday, I found 11 players who wouldn’t exactly cause shockwaves if they were left out of the side in the weeks ahead.
There’s Dayne Beams, Jarryd Blair, Leigh Brown, Chris Dawes, Tyson Goldsack, Ben Johnson, Tarkyn Lockyer, Brent Macaffer, Steele Sidebottom, Alan Toovey and Sharrod Wellingham.
These are players who would still be a bit nervous ahead of selection every Thursday night. That’s not to say some of these players haven’t been playing well.
Only last Saturday Brown received a vote in the 3AW Player of the Year award, as he’d done the week before. Clearly, he’s had two terrific games.
Beams has averaged 21 possessions and kicked 17 goals in 16 games, and Sidebottom 18 possessions a game for 16 goals in 16 games.
Johnson and Wellingham have averaged 21 possessions from 15 games, while Dawes, with 21 goals in 11 games, sits second on the club goalkicking list, equal with Travis Cloke and behind only Didak (29).
But what I’m saying is that these players are not necessarily permanent fixtures in the senior side and might not survive a few down weeks and still hold their spot.
I’ve always believed that while playing for your position each week may be a good motivation, it can also be quite nerve-wracking and not exactly conducive to maximising performance levels.
At Collingwood, though, this ‘living on the edge’ process seems to be working a treat.
But back to my first paragraph..
The thing that hits me the most about the Collingwood team at the moment is the unusually high number of players who have come into the AFL system with a relatively modest draft ranking.
Sure, they’ve got the normal handful of high draft selections. And by ‘high’ I mean 1-20. There’s Dale Thomas (pick No.2), Alan Didak (3), Scott Pendlebury (5), Ben Reid (8), Simon Prestigiacomo (10) and Sidebottom (11). Plus Luke Ball, who was originally taken at No.3.
Their list also includes two comparatively cheap father/son signings in Heath Shaw and Cloke, and what you might term a high-price recruit in Darren Jolly, who cost the Magpies selections No.14 and 46 in last year’s national draft.
Otherwise, it is a line-up dominated by players from humble football beginnings.
I must say I’ve always been a bit cynical when I hear clubs talking of a five-year plan. To me a month is a long time in footy, and next year is an absolute eternity away.
The process of recruiting raw talent and developing it to maximum potential is the obvious first step in any club operation.
Enormous credit must go to the Collingwood coaching and development system which has churned out a big group of players who were low-ranked horse-manure draft and rookie choices, but are producing strawberry jam performances.
With Shaw and Cloke missing from the top side last weekend, there were no less than 15 players who were drafted at 25-plus, including an extraordinary seven players who started out as rookies.
The ex-rookies are a talented list in their own right - captain Nick Maxwell, Harry O’Brien, Wellingham, Lockyer, Macaffer, Toovey and Blair.
To have seven players in the top team who started their careers as obscure rookies is quite remarkable.
Of the others, there was Dawes, taken at selection No.28, Beams (29), Leon Davis (34), Dane Swan (58), Johnson (62), Goldsack (63) and Brown (73), plus Ball, whose price tag to the Pies was selection No.30 in last year’s national draft.
As hard as it might seem to be underrated playing for the heavily publicised Magpies, there are a lot of relative young unknowns playing well above their reputation. And, oddly, there are some more high profile types not in the side. Like Jack Anthony, Nathan Brown, Brad idiot, Josh Fraser, Paul Medhurst, Shane O’Bree and Cameron Wood.
Interestingly, too, only one Collingwood player - midfielder Swan - is a certain All-Australian.
Didak might be classified as a ‘likely’ All-Australian choice, with O’Brien a possibility, but otherwise they have no genuine Team of the Year contenders.
No doubt this year Jolly, as a strong power ruckman, and Ball, as another in-close ball-winner, have been valuable additions to the Collingwood side.
The biggest improver in its own ranks is stuff Reid. Drafted at No.8 in 2006 as a highly-rated key forward, he had played only eight games in three years prior to this year. Last year he played two senior games while spending most of his time learning to play key defence in the VFL.
Obviously he did so with very good effect in what is further proof of a development process that requires young players to be given time, patience and training at a lower level to gain the necessary confidence and skill-set to be successful at the top level.
Leaving aside first-year players in terms of those who can be measured from season to season, Reid might just be the competition’s most improved, progressing from out of the team into a very competent key defender.
Collingwood started the season as one of the five clubs that I thought could win the premiership and their chances have only grown after 17 rounds. And they have got to the top with a champion team more so than a team of champions.
Therein lies that nagging doubt because to win the flag they will have to find a way to beat the mighty Geelong, who have the proven double: they are both a champion team and a team of champions.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/99099/default.aspx (http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/99099/default.aspx)
We will continue to consign ourselves to the scrapheap of football failures if we embrace the direction of deliberately taking steps to lose games of football just to gain that critical, all-conquering, almighty, higher number at the draft table. The salvation and future of our team and our club lies in our attitude, our culture, our skillset, our professionalism, our sense of team - or if I combine it under one heading - 'our development'. Tanking? Smart list management? Good coaching? Call it whatever you want but cheats, rorters, bludgers and egotists all get found out eventually and all fail in the pressure cooker environment of team sports like AFL football (in life actually but that's for another day). And there is no evidence to suggest or prove that taking the 'easy' shortcut works or has ever succeeded. If you think that tanking is the way forward then go follow your Melbourne, your Carlton and enjoy all the success you have with them. Just don't embarrass yourself by trying to look me in the eye when I'm celebrating my team's victory won through the virtues of hard work, courage, honesty and team - you already know what I think of you and your cheating ways and I won't bother meeting your gaze.
-
I do agree with one thing FFV said. Melbourne were smart at trading (McLean for pick 11).
Let's not kid ourselves that Melbourne's current resurgence has anything to do with tanking. From a Melbourne supporter:
1) Grimes - trade for Johnstone
2) Jamar - been on the list for a long time now
3) frawley - a Daniher draftee at 12
4) Sylvia - picked up in 04
Bruce
Green
Mcdonald
MacDonald - trade
Bate and Dunn - Daniher draftees
Garland and warnock late pick and rookie
Jones - Daniher Draftee
the list goes on
Morton has not played much this year
Watts is developing
Jurrah was a rookie
as was Davey
Moloney a trade
Gysberts - trade for Mclean
then that only really leaves Scully and Trengove, and Trengove has missed some footy too.
Clearly Melbourne's improvement is attributable to things other than tanking: maybe drilling a game plan into them as much as possible is the most important? I think so.
Keep in mind that every single coach will tell you that the most important thing for a young side to do is play games and commit to and learn the game plan. There are only 22 opportunities to do that in serious competition each year. That's not many. It is vital that young players learn the game plan layer by layer, until each layer becomes second nature before beginning the next layer. It is pure folly to suggest that teams should start tinkering with that learning process 3, 4, 5, 6 or even (as some suggest) 10 games out from the end of a season by shifting players into unfamiliar positions or deliberately unbalancing sides or faking injuries to players. You might consider it in the last game, if it meant picking up an extra top 3 pick, but to suggest that throwing away these teaching opportunities is worth moving from pick 8 to pick 4 or 6 or whatever, is madness. That isn't "playing the system" or being "professional", its being negligently wasteful.
On the other hand, the preseason has become so crucial to the development of each player, and the team, that it is just good management to put players like Tambling into surgery or Foley and Cotchin into the warehouse now. If they have yet another interrupted preseason, we'll be talking about tanking again next season, after round 12. ::)
We could develop as best as possible all the Jake King types on our list and we still wouldn't improve. Footballers need the ability first and foremost and then under proper development and their own hard work will they make it in a top side.
Melbourne's resurgence has only just begun. They aren't there yet but you can see the pieces in place given the list they now have. It'll be the newbies who are starting out or haven't played yet that will eventually push them up the ladder from their current 10th spot and turn them into a regular finals side. It was Scully btw in the last quarter (a Tiger supporter nevertheless :( ) who got them going and smashed us in the last quarter last week. Class won out in the end.
Melbourne
33: McDonald (248 )
30: Bruce (221)
29: Green (217)
-----------------------------------------------------
27: Davey (138 ), Jamar (92), Miller (133)
26: Moloney (106), Warnock (50), Johnson (68 )
25: Macdonald (95), Bell (66), Rivers (105)
24: Sylvia (100), Meesen# (6)
23: Martin (29), Newton (23), Dunn (67), Bate (82), Hughes# (2)
------------------------------------------------------
22: Bartram (77), Garland (37), Jones (89), Bail (8 ), Petterd (35)
21: Frawley (58 ), Jurrah (14), Wonaeamirri (23), Grimes (26)
20: Cheney (14), Jetta (21), Maric (12), McNamara (3), Morton (48 ), Bennell (33), Strauss (2), Healy# (-), Spencer# (8 )
19: Blease (-), Watts (15), Scully (18), Gysberts (3), stuff (-), Tapscott (-), McKenzie# (19)
18: Trengove (15), Gawn (-)
Oldies: 3
Prime: 16
Youth: 27
14 of the Melbourne players (highlighted) who played against us were 24 and under. 12 of them 22 and under. They were also missing Petterd and Grimes from that group who are in their current best 22. That's 16 just there. They have roughly another half a dozen or so top 20 picks in the wings. Jamar at 27 years old is not old for a ruckman. They are on the way up after maximising their draft opportunities while truly bottoming out. Remember they played finals just 4 years ago in 2006 then had 3 crap years 2007-9 where they learnt after 2007 that an honourable win that costs you a PP screws you at the draft table so they made the most of the draft system while at the bottom in 2008-9. That pain is now starting to bear fruit and by 2012 they'll be a top 6 side.
Richmond has had 4 years of really being crap onfield from 2007-10 where we've finished 16th, 9th (after just 3 wins from first 12 rounds), 15th and now 15th again. And guess what for all that pain we've got just one second round PP which we traded away to show for it. Laughable if it wasn't such a crime against the Club. Okay people may argue that from 2007-mid 09 we had Wallace "locked and loaded". However Wallace was gone by mid-2009 when we had just 2 wins at that stage of last season. We knew we needed to clean out the list and take our medicine bottoming out to rebuild properly and that this would take time (even the club publicly admitted 18-24 months). We knew we would struggle in 2010 and quite possibly in 2011 as well given all the retirements last year and how young and inexperienced our list was/is. So did we as a Club maximise our draft position in 2009 (ie. gain a freebie PP) by winning no more than 4 games? Nup! Did we plan to win 4 games last year to maximise our draft position for 2010 given we knew we would struggle this year? Nup! If we struggle again in 2011 which is a strong possibility given our young list, have we at least maximised our draft position this year (4 wins) for such a scenario next year? Nup! It's not simply a case of pick 4 vs pick 6 vs pick 8 although those picks after far better than pick 17 you get for finishing ninth this year. It's that unlike other clubs we never seem to learn from the past, nor understand how to make the most of the draft system, nor plan ahead for likely scenarios for the next successive few years when it comes to list management. Painful floggings such as yesterday just reaffirm to me how desperately we needed those extra PPs to access more of the talented kids we need to truly improve our list. Whereas an extra couple of wins that make you feel good for a couple of hours does stuff all in the long run. Whatismore, not only do you gain another kid at the top end of the draft for free but for every PP you gain it gives you the chance to offload another list clogger and turn over your list faster which accelerates the rebuild.
-
The Melbourne win cost us nothing. Absolutely nothing. In fact, it's quite possible if we had lost, right now people would be spewing that we picked trengove while Martin carved it up for Freo.
Thank you for confirming that Al.
You know Mighty Tige's I caught up with our mutual friend straight after the Melbourne game last week, and she and her little clique were still grumbling that that win last year had cost us a priority pick. I tried to explain for the 1,000th time that we'd already blown it by beating Essendon, but was howled down by the majority.
I wish you'd been at the Rowena Parade Milk Bar with me last Sunday arvo Al :lol
I wish I was there too RR. Sounds like a fiesty conversation was had by all ;D.
I never said the Melbourne game last year cost us a PP. It was the Dees tanking in that game who were after a PP. However we did miss out on a top 20 PP if you include that game and the draw with North. Further those 1.5 "wins" stuffed us up this year from ever being able to get our hands on two top 6 picks had we kept our wins to 4. So for a measly 3.5 wins over two seasons we've thrown away a top 4 and a top 20 pick. As I said in the previous post yesterday's embarrassment hurts even more knowing how badly we could have used both PPs. Those short monthly runs of form/wins both last year under Rawlings and this year are easily forgotten when we've been pants 3 times in the past 5 games and blown away in the last quarter last week. Reality checks hurt RR especially to those pricks from Lexus Swan St and Royal Parade when they shove our faces in it onfield :chuck.
-
Aaargghh! Fine, fine you got me. I'm wrong for wanting to try and win every time we run out. Forgive me, but I thought that was the basic premise of all sporting endeavour. Silly me. Obviously losing, but cleverly disguising it as "experimenting" with match-ups and resting "injured" players is the way to go. After 30 years in the wilderness Richmond obviously needs to lie down for another 5-10 years and stock up on quality draft picks. After all, we all live forever don't we?
In the meantime, I think I'll book myself into a cryogenic chamber. Wake me up in a few hundred years when the Tigers are competitive again. By the way MT, the sarcasm evident in this post is not directed at you. I'm just sick of the lousy, corrupt, inequitable AFL and their whole stinking system.
Between this priority pick nonsense, and what some clubs have shamelessly done to acquire them, the flooding, the continued creation and propping up of soulless interstate franchises, umpires, match review panels and fixtures that always seem to favour Collingwood, while giving us short shrift I'm just fed up with the game altogether.
-
Aaargghh! Fine, fine you got me. I'm wrong for wanting to try and win every time we run out. Forgive me, but I thought that was the basic premise of all sporting endeavour. Silly me. Obviously losing, but cleverly disguising it as "experimenting" with match-ups and resting "injured" players is the way to go. After 30 years in the wilderness Richmond obviously needs to lie down for another 5-10 years and stock up on quality draft picks. After all, we all live forever don't we?
In the meantime, I think I'll book myself into a cryogenic chamber. Wake me up in a few hundred years when the Tigers are competitive again. By the way MT, the sarcasm evident in this post is not directed at you. I'm just sick of the lousy, corrupt, inequitable AFL and their whole stinking system.
Between this priority pick nonsense, and what some clubs have shamelessly done to acquire them, the flooding, the continued creation and propping up of soulless interstate franchises, umpires, match review panels and fixtures that always seem to favour Collingwood, while giving us short shrift I'm just fed up with the game altogether.
the AFL choose to make the system the way it is
blame
a) the afl
b) richmond for not playing the system the last dozen years
-
geez MT, take a bext and lie down mate, pretty clear to me the club has put the cue in the rack and is going through the motions in this last stanza, so your carping that we have won too many games and hoping we win none next year....that simple minded narrow view would spell doom for the club, would love to see the prospect of re-signing our young stars if the outlook was as bleak as the pipe dream you just smoked...we have a club to run, what we achieved in the 2H of the year demonstarted is we are on the right track with everything we have put in place. Had Cotch and Jacko not been suspended for a month I'd doubt we would have competely lost the momentum we seemingly did. 45-50 possies , upteen clearances is hard to replace with debutants...recent results are meaningless, we have been deliberately undermanned.
with 7 selections likely on top- of 14 additions last year...whoa, it's all happening :shh
-
So winning just 1.5 more games than the PP criteria last year and 2 more this year has stopped players from walking ???. Sheesh we've won just 11 from the past 42 matches and been on the end of 9 non-competitive floggings this year so it's hardly a get on the Tiggy bandwagon win/loss record. Jack (vs Nth 09), Jordie (vs Melb 09), Collo (vs Syd 10) all missing the last goal of the match kicks plus Adelaide kicking straight 2 weeks back and we would have our list in exactly the same place as now yet we'd have another top 20 last year and top 4 pick this year to go with it. It was hardly a long stretch for us to meet the PP criteria both last year and this year :P. Players are re-signing because they believe in the process and gameplan Dimma has set-up not because we won a couple of extra games.
I don't hope we don't win any games next year smokey. I would love nothing better than for us to play finals but we have to be honest and realistic in saying that like this year we will struggle to win many games next year given our young list and if we have bad luck (ie. injuries to key players) then we could finish near last :-\. That's just the reality of where we are at - in the middle of bottoming out. I'm not having a go at Dimma nor our young players for that. It's not their fault where we are. However given we are bottoming out and playing kids we from a list management p.o.v. did not make the best of a poor period both last and this year by exploting the draft system to the max. as most other clubs cleverly have. Not doing it has effectively extended our bottoming out phase by a year. So by not "tanking" we have only prolonged the very pain and more losing seasons that the anti-tankers argue they don't want.
Losing Cotch and Jacko didn't cost us momentum btw. It just exposed our complete lack of depth and unless we have our best 22 guys giving 100% we have little hope of even being competitive. Once again the whole point of "tanking" to gain PPs is to turnover the list quickly and build up that depth with a talented young list that bats deep. Not "tanking" has prolonged that process. The only way now to make up for that is to trade players away that will gain us early picks. However do we have any surplus players with high trade value that will score us more first round picks?! :-\
-
The Melbourne win cost us nothing. Absolutely nothing. In fact, it's quite possible if we had lost, right now people would be spewing that we picked trengove while Martin carved it up for Freo.
lol two meaningless wins cost us not trengove but bastinac. geez if we had taken trengove over martin who would complain both are guns.
anyway i believe scully was the only player we rated in front of martin but like said neither here nor there.
yep those two meaningless wins pick 18 oh what a cost it has turned out to be.
and if we had done the right thing and gone thru the process last yr we would be arguing about picks 4 and 6 this yr rather than the merits of picks 26 and 28.
you blokes as far as im concerned can shove your meaningless wins up where the sun dont shine me i will take picks 18 and 6 anyday.
-
Aaargghh! Fine, fine you got me. I'm wrong for wanting to try and win every time we run out. Forgive me, but I thought that was the basic premise of all sporting endeavour. Silly me. Obviously losing, but cleverly disguising it as "experimenting" with match-ups and resting "injured" players is the way to go. After 30 years in the wilderness Richmond obviously needs to lie down for another 5-10 years and stock up on quality draft picks. After all, we all live forever don't we?
In the meantime, I think I'll book myself into a cryogenic chamber. Wake me up in a few hundred years when the Tigers are competitive again. By the way MT, the sarcasm evident in this post is not directed at you. I'm just sick of the lousy, corrupt, inequitable AFL and their whole stinking system.
Between this priority pick nonsense, and what some clubs have shamelessly done to acquire them, the flooding, the continued creation and propping up of soulless interstate franchises, umpires, match review panels and fixtures that always seem to favour Collingwood, while giving us short shrift I'm just fed up with the game altogether.
the AFL choose to make the system the way it is
blame
a) the afl
b) richmond for not playing the system the last dozen years
Yep blame lies with (a) as far as flawed draft system that penalises bottom sides for winning late in the season. if they made the draft random for the bottom 8 and abolished PPs, it would no longer be an issue where you finish on the ladder. Sadly (b) is right too but for a multitude of reasons :-\.
-
blame
b) richmond for not playing the system the last dozen years
Pure bollocks!
since 1997 we have finished in the bottom 4, 8 times - that's basically three quarters bottom 4. Surely if you think you need to consistently finish near the bottom of the ladder to get success then that is 'playing the system"?
Just how poor do you have to perform to get success?
(http://alphadog.net.au/publicfiles/graph.jpg)
Then if you go back to 86 to 93, eight years straight bottom 4. That should have set us up for 10 years of geelong like dominance.
The idea that we have not performed poorly enough (played the system if you wish) to become successful is not only flawed in it's concept, but also in reality.
-
yep those two meaningless wins pick 18 oh what a cost it has turned out to be.
I don't understand what a "meaningless" win is. You seem to so maybe you could enlighten me.
We had 5 wins, so which 3 weren't "meaningless"? All 5 combined contributed so what is it that makes 2 of them "meaningless" and which 2?
If the Melbourne win was "meaningless", why? I really, really don't get that one.
-
blame
b) richmond for not playing the system the last dozen years
Pure bollocks!
since 1997 we have finished in the bottom 4, 8 times - that's basically three quarters bottom 4. Surely if you think you need to consistently finish near the bottom of the ladder to get success then that is 'playing the system"?
Just how poor do you have to perform to get success?
(http://alphadog.net.au/publicfiles/graph.jpg)
Yeah but Al, finishing near the bottom is only half the equation to "playing the system". You actually have to utilize your draft picks properly, which is something Richmond didn't do in the past. Frawley used to trade them away to get the likes of Stafford, Blumfield, Hudson and Houlihan. Wallace and Miller butchered the 2004 draft. Five picks in the top 20, and only Deledio has been any good. Tambling hasn't come on, Meyer and Patto are gone, and Polo is on the way out. The 2005 draft was a disaster too.
-
blame
b) richmond for not playing the system the last dozen years
Pure bollocks!
since 1997 we have finished in the bottom 4, 8 times - that's basically three quarters bottom 4. Surely if you think you need to consistently finish near the bottom of the ladder to get success then that is 'playing the system"?
Just how poor do you have to perform to get success?
(http://alphadog.net.au/publicfiles/graph.jpg)
Then if you go back to 86 to 93, eight years straight bottom 4. That should have set us up for 10 years of geelong like dominance.
The idea that we have not performed poorly enough (played the system if you wish) to become successful is not only flawed in it's concept, but also in reality.
The problem with your graph is that in a number of years whilst we may have finished 3rd or 4th bottom, concession picks were in operation for the bottom clubs, so we ended up with say a pick 8 instead of a pick 4.
-
surely ramps the difference between pick 4 and picks 6-8 is not the difference between being a competitive side and being crap. You could possibly put an (relatively week) argument forward that it is the difference between winning a premiership and being runners up or consistently getting loosing prlims, but not the difference a resemblance of success and abject failure.
The idea that we are crap because of a lack of early draft picks is just wrong. There are a multitude of reasons - basicaly in every aspect Richmond has not been able match the standard and professionalism of other clubs . We are talking about recruiting, development, player welfare, off field stability/unity, coaching staff/regimes, football resources, income stream, marketing, club culture. These are the things that if you get right will bring success. Always has been and always will be.
The idea that we have not had enough early draft picks is not only too simplistic, but it is just plain wrong. We have had stacks, but have been too big a basket case of a club to take advantage of it.
I don't think it's half the equation Rolls, but a lot less. Getting everything else right is a major part of the equation, but yes, that it basically the point I'm trying to make
-
................
I don't hope we don't win any games next year smokey.
...............
Hey MT, it's not me debating with you this time! ;D
-
surely ramps the difference between pick 4 and picks 6-8 is not the difference between being a competitive side and being crap. You could possibly put an (relatively week) argument forward that it is the difference between winning a premiership and being runners up or consistently getting loosing prlims, but not the difference a resemblance of success and abject failure.
The idea that we are crap because of a lack of early draft picks is just wrong. There are a multitude of reasons - basicaly in every aspect Richmond has not been able match the standard and professionalism of other clubs . We are talking about recruiting, development, player welfare, off field stability/unity, coaching staff/regimes, football resources, income stream, marketing, club culture. These are the things that if you get right will bring success. Always has been and always will be.
The idea that we have not had enough early draft picks is not only too simplistic, but it is just plain wrong. We have had stacks, but have been too big a basket case of a club to take advantage of it.
I don't think it's half the equation Rolls, but a lot less. Getting everything else right is a major part of the equation, but yes, that it basically the point I'm trying to make
I think you'll find everyone agrees with you on this one al. Picks are useless unless you have the sufficent investiment in drafting and development. Until recently we have neither which is why we could have finished last for 10 years and still struggled to win a flag. The difference not though is that, for all appearances, we have the support staff at the club to finally take full advantage of the draft and teaching the talent that we bring through from it. This is why finishing as far down the ladder as possible now is actually a positive because, like last year, we will ultize our position fully rather than waste it.
The last decade in particular was mind boggling. Allowing us to trade away draft picks, choose players without sufficent research and then offer little to no development is an outright crime. :banghead
I agree with you regarding drafting - you need the people, structures and systems in place to exploit the system sufficently. We now do so now is the time to finish as far down the ladder as we can so we can have the talent to develop and build a structure around to win us a flag :thumbsup
Stripes
-
yep those two meaningless wins pick 18 oh what a cost it has turned out to be.
I don't understand what a "meaningless" win is. You seem to so maybe you could enlighten me.
We had 5 wins, so which 3 weren't "meaningless"? All 5 combined contributed so what is it that makes 2 of them "meaningless" and which 2?
If the Melbourne win was "meaningless", why? I really, really don't get that one.
lots of angles for a meaningless win.
the obvious ones which by the way most who dont believe in tanking throw up as excuses why we should not tank or lose one or two meaningless games.
hmm how about what momentum did those late wins help us take into the next season.
or what about winning culture what winning culture did they create. youy can only consistently win if you have the players capable of doing it.
ask yourself since we last made finals in 01 how many eventual top 8 sides have we beaten sheesh in 8 yrs you could count them on your fingers. need i go on its been done to death but put simply it is a meaningless exercise to win games that cost you in the draft when invariably you dont have the players capable of climbing. we have a system and people rfuse to utilise it to its maximum effect.
nope we would rather win against a battling side and give away pick 18 or pick 6 knowing full well we are likely to be in this same situation next yr.
if we had tanked after 06 having given wallace his two yrs and chance to get the older blokes a taste of finals the haul of quality kids would now have us in a position to launch a sustained finals tilt.
what i dont get is people are arguing weather we finssh 15 16th or 9th or 12th people do realise without tanking our results are still crap.yet they dont want to maximise our chances in the only course open to us to realistically build.
if we had embraced not just tanking but totally rebuilding with youth from 06/ 07 onwards the list of potential richmond players is staggering.
-
Thanks for replying. :)
You haven't answered, though. I've still got no idea what a "meaningless" win is.
I need to know which wins were "meaningless" and which weren't to have any chance of ever understanding.
I actually don't think there is any such thing but I'm open to be convinced otherwise.
You say 2 wins last year were "meaningless". Which 2?
ask yourself since we last made finals in 01 how many eventual top 8 sides have we beaten
We beat Essendon last year. They were an eventual top 8 side.
It was also the win which made us ineligible for a priority pick.
Was that a "meaningless" win?
-
Perhaps a meaningless win is really only a personal view?
When the team wins a game that that person actually wanted us to lose and thus could not get any enjoyment out of that win, then to them it becomes a meaningless win?
Or maybe if you don't win the premiership, then every win you have is meaningless?
Actually, perhaps the whole thing is meaningless? Specially if you can't get any enjoyment out of it?
Once you solve this riddle, smelly finger, can you then determine when exactly our next premiership will be so that we can, once and for all, quantify which players will be part of it and which ones won't?
As for the remaining big question after that I believe the answer is 42
-
Thanks for replying. :)
You haven't answered, though. I've still got no idea what a "meaningless" win is.
I need to know which wins were "meaningless" and which weren't to have any chance of ever understanding.
I actually don't think there is any such thing but I'm open to be convinced otherwise.
You say 2 wins last year were "meaningless". Which 2?
ask yourself since we last made finals in 01 how many eventual top 8 sides have we beaten
We beat Essendon last year. They were an eventual top 8 side.
It was also the win which made us ineligible for a priority pick.
Was that a "meaningless" win?
FF the win against the Bombers should never have happened and i dont think would've happened if we had a coach NOT playing for his future. If it was this year and Dimma was out there coaching do you really think he would try and win thus not enhancing his list.
That win meant nothing, felt like nothing and was just plain wrong especially when we could've landed a Bastinac etc in our mits
A meaningless win is just like that against the Bombers where a coach is doing everything he can to win to save his career. We all knew leather face was not going to be there next year so what point was it trying to win that crappy game for a coach that was on the way out.
-
FF the win against the Bombers should never have happened and i dont think would've happened if we had a coach NOT playing for his future. If it was this year and Dimma was out there coaching do you really think he would try and win thus not enhancing his list.
That win meant nothing, felt like nothing and was just plain wrong especially when we could've landed a Bastinac etc in our mits
A meaningless win is just like that against the Bombers where a coach is doing everything he can to win to save his career. We all knew leather face was not going to be there next year so what point was it trying to win that crappy game for a coach that was on the way out.
Wallace was long gone. You could mount the case for Rawlings trying to get a job except then you ask me if I think Hardwick would try to win. Yes, I do.
That win felt really good to me. Going by the claw's reasoning about not beating eventual top 8 sides since 2001, it was a great win.
I suppose I'd best just agree to disagree because saying any win is "meaningless" is a nonsense.
-
FF the win against the Bombers should never have happened and i dont think would've happened if we had a coach NOT playing for his future. If it was this year and Dimma was out there coaching do you really think he would try and win thus not enhancing his list.
That win meant nothing, felt like nothing and was just plain wrong especially when we could've landed a Bastinac etc in our mits
A meaningless win is just like that against the Bombers where a coach is doing everything he can to win to save his career. We all knew leather face was not going to be there next year so what point was it trying to win that crappy game for a coach that was on the way out.
Wallace was long gone. You could mount the case for Rawlings trying to get a job except then you ask me if I think Hardwick would try to win. Yes, I do.
That win felt really good to me. Going by the claw's reasoning about not beating eventual top 8 sides since 2001, it was a great win.
I suppose I'd best just agree to disagree because saying any win is "meaningless" is a nonsense.
sorry my mistake Rawlings was in charge your right.
I was really happy we lost every game under Rawlings and would've been more happier had we lost all of them.
if you want to know the truth those losses under rawlings felt like wins for me because
a) and most importantly it meant he would not be our coach. He is and still isnt fit to be a senior coach of Oakleigh Reserves let alone our football club. A dud of the highest order who wouldve had us playing the same crap as we did with leather face.
and B) we were closer to another gun in another super draft.
we got A but not B
-
FF the win against the Bombers should never have happened and i dont think would've happened if we had a coach NOT playing for his future. If it was this year and Dimma was out there coaching do you really think he would try and win thus not enhancing his list.
That win meant nothing, felt like nothing and was just plain wrong especially when we could've landed a Bastinac etc in our mits
A meaningless win is just like that against the Bombers where a coach is doing everything he can to win to save his career. We all knew leather face was not going to be there next year so what point was it trying to win that crappy game for a coach that was on the way out.
Wallace was long gone. You could mount the case for Rawlings trying to get a job except then you ask me if I think Hardwick would try to win. Yes, I do.
That win felt really good to me. Going by the claw's reasoning about not beating eventual top 8 sides since 2001, it was a great win.
I suppose I'd best just agree to disagree because saying any win is "meaningless" is a nonsense.
sorry my mistake Rawlings was in charge your right.
I was really happy we lost every game under Rawlings and would've been more happier had we lost all of them.
if you want to know the truth those losses under rawlings felt like wins for me because
a) and most importantly it meant he would not be our coach. He is and still isnt fit to be a senior coach of Oakleigh Reserves let alone our football club. A dud of the highest order who wouldve had us playing the same crap as we did with leather face.
and B) we were closer to another gun in another super draft.
we got A but not B
looks like west cost will get the scraps of GC
-
Thanks for replying. :)
You haven't answered, though. I've still got no idea what a "meaningless" win is.
I need to know which wins were "meaningless" and which weren't to have any chance of ever understanding.
I actually don't think there is any such thing but I'm open to be convinced otherwise.
You say 2 wins last year were "meaningless". Which 2?
ask yourself since we last made finals in 01 how many eventual top 8 sides have we beaten
We beat Essendon last year. They were an eventual top 8 side.
It was also the win which made us ineligible for a priority pick.
Was that a "meaningless" win?
so in what way did that win mean anything to this side?
for mine it was meaningless, cost us a PP which would have been worth more to this football club long term than a win against an overachieving bombers side.
-
sorry my mistake Rawlings was in charge your right.
I was really happy we lost every game under Rawlings and would've been more happier had we lost all of them.
if you want to know the truth those losses under rawlings felt like wins for me because
a) and most importantly it meant he would not be our coach. He is and still isnt fit to be a senior coach of Oakleigh Reserves let alone our football club. A dud of the highest order who wouldve had us playing the same crap as we did with leather face.
and B) we were closer to another gun in another super draft.
we got A but not B
Rawlings was smart enough to Banish Bowden,the greatest example of individual mentality in what i think was a necessary stance in showing to the younger group that there is no "I" in team...
-
I'll bite....
A "meaningless" win is classed as any win(s) that happen after the season is shot when you are still below the PP threshold that then puts you over the 4-wins threshold.
Our last four seasons have been shot by round 11 and I'm being generous. All but 2008 were shot within the first month :P.
R1-11 R12-22
2007: 0-10-1 (16th) 3-8 (16th) .......... top 20 PP which we traded away for Jordie so we threw it away :scream.
2008: 3-7-1 (12th) 8-3 (9th) .......... no PP
2009: 2-9 (15th) 3-7-1 (15th) .......... no PP
2010: 1-10 (16th) 5-3* (15th*) .......... no PP
We were the first side in the era of PPs to finish 15th without gaining a PP btw last year and possibly will repeat that stat this year.
Furthermore you or more particularly the list manager along with heads of the footy dept. also judge how far away as a team and list you are from becoming a top side. If you're grinding out wins in low standard games against other mediocre sides yet you are non-competitive against the better sides then you're daylight away and winning games late in the season is fool's gold which just hurts you at the draft table where you need to access the top end of the draft where most of the talented kids are that will improve your list both in quality and depth.
In our case blind freddy knew halfway through last year that we would struggle in 2010 and more than likely in 2011 given the loss of experience and the increased youth of the list. Clearly our list manager was asleep at the wheel as far as long term planning to maximise the draft options available :-\.
-
A "meaningless" win is classed as any win(s) that happen after the season is shot when you are still below the PP threshold that then puts you over the 4-wins threshold.
Thankyou. ;D That's a fair explanation. Not that I'm an advocate of managing any loss.
It's in the terminology then because those wins may not have helped to possibly structure a stronger list but they were not meaningless. No wins are.
Just thinking back to Richmond's last proper resurgence, in 1979 3 wins and 8 losses at the halfway mark.
Thankfully PPs and tanking for them weren't around because the tiges suddenly clicked and won 9 of the last 11 to miss the finals but get momentum which carried into 1980.
-
Right now, after 3 bad losses, any wins this deep into the season with pick 6 vs 8 or 12 at stake make for a meaningless win.
We won't beat the saints and do not need to beat port. We do not need to tank to lose to the power. Rest cotch, play will at ff for the experience and zone your arse off (like the magpie game) for education. We'll learn and lose. Pick 6 nice one!!!?
-
The strongest side available will be picked against port. If cotchin wasn't going to play then he wouldn't play this week either. Last game for cuz the players will be fired up. Will finish the season with a win.
If we do win, I challenge anyone to go to the players after the game and tell them that it was a meaningless win and see what reaction they get.
-
I think a number of players will be playing their ring out to give Cuz a good going out.
I also think most supporters would not classify a win in Cuz's last game as meaningless
-
MT's definition is a good one but I'll try and add to it.
For mine - A meaningless win is a win that creates negliable benefits to the club in retrospect and conversely may actually damages its future development.
So at a stage of the year when we are struggling to win against any team but the weakest and hover around the bottom of the ladder - wins become meaningless because they 1)do not help with team culture or supporter expectation moving into the next year (frequently creating false dawns and incorrect list judgements) and 2) hurt us at the trade & draft table in terms of bargining ability and choice.
The players never play to lose and nor should they. Player selection and coaching games with the future as a priority rather than the immediate win is the responsibility of the administration and needs to be made on behalf of their supporters. Very few supporters can see beyond the moment, beyond the next win and beyond the immediate future. It is the job of the administration to see beyond the emotion of the moment and 'meaningless wins' and do whatever they can to get us to our next flag.
Stripes
-
So, do you actually believe that there are meaningless wins or is it some kind of throw-away term which belies the definition of the word meaningless?
If winning was meaningless I wouldn't bother.
-
Drop cousins for round 22 and debut contin
-
So, do you actually believe that there are meaningless wins or is it some kind of throw-away term which belies the definition of the word meaningless?
If winning was meaningless I wouldn't bother.
I think for the players and supporters striving to win at all costs is far from meaningless but taking emotion out of the equation and looking big-picture = absolutely. Some wins are worst that meaningless - some are actually detrimental.
If a club is sitting on 4 wins at the end of a year, playing another club who will finish bottom of the table too in the last game of the year...will that win be meaningful if they miss out on a priority pick? I ask you is that win meaningful? Will it bring anyone lasting benefits? Will it even be remembered when the same club continues to see other clubs pass them by up the ladder as they suffer from poor draft choices, poor players, poor development, poor culture and poor performances year after year?
After the Melbourne win last year I felt gutted but that win was a loss for me. A win is when you are a success - when a victory reduces you chances of future success its no longer a win to me - its meaningless, its a loss.
As the old saying goes - 'Win the battle, lose the war'. Is wins ever meaningless - you bet.
Stripes
-
Drop cousins for round 22 and debut contin
You idiot!
-
why?
cousins has no part in our future 2011+
grimes or contin might
Drop cousins for round 22 and debut contin
You idiot!
-
Geez! i thought you were poo stirring
-
After the Melbourne win last year I felt gutted but that win was a loss for me. A win is when you are a success - when a victory reduces you chances of future success its no longer a win to me - its meaningless, its a loss.
As the old saying goes - 'Win the battle, lose the war'. Is wins ever meaningless - you bet.
Why would that win feel like a loss? ???
It made no difference to our ladder position or a PP. Close all day. Long bomb goal after the final siren to clinch it. If you couldn't enjoy that win I've got no idea what wins you could enjoy.
Out of interest, what do you do straight after one of these wrongly called meaningless wins?
-
After the Melbourne win last year I felt gutted but that win was a loss for me. A win is when you are a success - when a victory reduces you chances of future success its no longer a win to me - its meaningless, its a loss.
As the old saying goes - 'Win the battle, lose the war'. Is wins ever meaningless - you bet.
Why would that win feel like a loss? ???
It made no difference to our ladder position or a PP. Close all day. Long bomb goal after the final siren to clinch it. If you couldn't enjoy that win I've got no idea what wins you could enjoy.
Out of interest, what do you do straight after one of these wrongly called meaningless wins?
Actually this is a good point.
You probably can't call them meaningless wins because during and just after the game you want to win/enjoy the win.
They are just not relevant to the team in the way say the Demons wins in the past 12 weeks have been.
So they are not relevant to the team given it is so late in the year and in 2 weeks time the players are on holiday for 6 weeks.
Look at the Eagles - beat us by 80 points in R22 last year, how did that win in any way help them for 2010?
I'd love to win both games and stay 15th but we won't so I hope the Lions win on the weekend and we spank the Power in R22.
-
would any of you trade the pick?
-
would any of you trade the pick?
not if your life depended on it
clubs dont make many mistakes inside the top 10 so getting rid of that would set us back big time.
big no for me.
-
No-way ( maybe for Gaz)- Atley or maybe Gaff, possibly Day welcome to Tigerland
-
would any of you trade the pick?
Yes, for Josh Toy. ;)
-
would any of you trade the pick?
for buddy in a heartbeat. :wallywink
-
A question for the "meaningless win" proponents - a win on Saturday would be classed as "meaningless"?
-
would any of you trade the pick?
Yes, for Josh Toy. ;)
this was the answer I was looking for :thumbsup
-
pick has no chance of being traded
only players aquired during trade week will be like for like players Ie trade bait Mcmahon Mcguane et all or via the pre season draft
Dont forget we are the 1st Melboure club that has a pre season draft pick
-
A question for the "meaningless win" proponents - a win on Saturday would be classed as "meaningless"?
no absolutely not
im sick to death of losing to those 1 premiership "alleged rapists
-
A question for the "meaningless win" proponents - a win on Saturday would be classed as "meaningless"?
yes
more so if we lose pick 6
-
It would be similar to beating hawks at the end of 2008.
Feels good for 24 hours, but does not set us up for the following season
-
It would be similar to beating hawks at the end of 2008.
Feels good for 24 hours, but does not set us up for the following season
Considering we haven't beaten the Saints since 2003, and have been on the receiving end of countless hidings from them in those 7 long years, I can tell you that getting that particular Gorilla off our back would feel good for more than just 24 hours.
In fact, not under any circumstances would such a win be considered meaningless. But it's all academic anyway, as we don't have a snowflakes chance in Hell of getting anywhere near the Saints tomorrow, unfortunately.
-
pick has no chance of being traded
only players aquired during trade week will be like for like players Ie trade bait Mcmahon Mcguane et all or via the pre season draft
Dont forget we are the 1st Melboure club that has a pre season draft pick
Blaisee but Im sure youve seen the speculation about this from various areas thats all but if its not happening then its not happening :gotigers
-
A question for the "meaningless win" proponents - a win on Saturday would be classed as "meaningless"?
yes
more so if we lose pick 6
It would be similar to beating hawks at the end of 2008.
Feels good for 24 hours, but does not set us up for the following season
So your saying that if we get pick 6 we will be set up for next season, but if we get pick 8 we wont be?
-
All I am saying is winning games in r21 as 22 might feel good but can hurt, come draft day.
-
we are already behind Melbourne in terms of ourlist potential. Rfc need to position them self as strong as possibile to set us up to try and be even 3 plus year from now
A question for the "meaningless win" proponents - a win on Saturday would be classed as "meaningless"?
yes
more so if we lose pick 6
It would be similar to beating hawks at the end of 2008.
Feels good for 24 hours, but does not set us up for the following season
So your saying that if we get pick 6 we will be set up for next season, but if we get pick 8 we wont be?
-
so what other actions should be taken to ensure we don't win against st kilda?
-
so what other actions should be taken to ensure we don't win against st kilda?
Experiment with a 'total forward 50 flood', where all of our team start the game in our F50 and run back in waves to watch Nick Riewoldt kick goal after goal.
-
Unless Brisbane 'upset' the Bombers tomorrow you would say we will beat Port and finish up with pick 8.
-
so what other actions should be taken to ensure we don't win against st kilda?
Experiment with a 'total forward 50 flood', where all of our team start the game in our F50 and run back in waves to watch Nick Riewoldt kick goal after goal.
:ROTFL
-
I suppose that was a meaningful loss yesterday
-
I suppose that was a meaningful loss yesterday
Yep :thumbsup
-
$50 slabbed on the Lions @ $2.30
Bombers are a mess internally and rumours they've been hit with the flu as well.
Lions will win for Jono Brown. He loves the Dome.
Come on Brissy get a win and give us Sean Atley!!!
-
Youve done well Pope Pick 6 is ours and we can win next week as well!
-
I love you Jono Brown!!!!!!!!
-
Knighta should do the right thing and give us Essendons No 1 pick for afew duds IMHO ;D - theyre gonna get rid of him by the end of 2011 anyway so he may as well shaft'em and help us out in the same process :gotigers
-
$50 slabbed on the Lions @ $2.30
Bombers are a mess internally and rumours they've been hit with the flu as well.
Lions will win for Jono Brown. He loves the Dome.
Come on Brissy get a win and give us Sean Atley!!!
Your shout Pope :lol
-
Ge if anyone thinks we have a bad list and is upset.. just watch an Essendon game .. the side is filled with absolute poo.
Wouldnt pick up for free:
Slattery
Quinn
Dempsey
Dyson
Welsh
Neagle
Riemers
Myers
Other than Hille, Ryder, Watson they're future is slop.
Riemers, Monfries, Hurley, Zaharakis, Jetta, Davey are so hot and cold.
Essendon FC = RIP.
-
Ge if anyone thinks we have a bad list and is upset.. just watch an Essendon game .. the side is filled with absolute poo.
Wouldnt pick up for free:
Slattery
Quinn
Dempsey
Dyson
Welsh
Neagle
Riemers
Myers
Other than Hille, Ryder, Watson they're future is slop.
Riemers, Monfries, Hurley, Zaharakis, Jetta, Davey are so hot and cold.
Essendon FC = RIP.
The deluded Essendon fans think that their team is good!! :lol
-
Myers was a kid with fantastic potential - needs a change of scenary to come good IMHO.
-
Myers was a kid with fantastic potential - needs a change of scenary to come good IMHO.
serious lack of pace
-
Brisbane win was absolutely fantastic. :thumbsup Let's smash the Power next week! :cheers :shh
-
Myers was a kid with fantastic potential - needs a change of scenary to come good IMHO.
serious lack of pace
Dont recall pace being an issue in his draft camp but could be wrong!