One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: Stripes on January 25, 2011, 12:31:49 PM
-
This part of the ground is a very difficult one to rate in my opinion. With Hardwicks new game plan and the manner in which the game is being played today, the hardest part for mine is coming up with a list of 'forwards' in the first place. Besides a few tall timber the rest of our goals will be generated from midfielders rotating or running back into the forward fifty rather than settled small forwards/crumbers.
So this is my ranking with that in mind -
1. Riewoldt - coleman medalist at 21.
The length of a footy field
2. Griffths - has the height, marking capability, long kicking and pace to be an absolute star. While he only played a handfull of games I am giving him the second ranking based on potential and the clubs analysis alone.
3. King - surprized everyone this year in his role as a defesive forward and showed that he could be dangerous if left free. Has a massive kick for a little fellow.
4. Vickery - has lacked in self belief and size to date but has great skills above his head and bellow his knees especially for his size. I predict he will have a great year in 2011 floating around the forwardline/
5. Post - has a size and skills but lacks in effort and determination. Has the 'little boy lost' look at times but may just need more confidence like many at his age.
6. Miller - unproven at our club but could turn out to be our 2nd forward on experience and effort alone. His age is the biggest deterent to winning games.
7. McDonald - tough character with a nack of finding the stcks but is underdone with his fitness and experience which will see him struggle for many games this year.
8. Taylor - has tremendous skills, additional size and added weight but has a lot to prove to the club, supporters and mostly - himself before he steps up. If he can get his head right he could well become our game breaker in years to come but he may only earn a few games unless he really focuses all his efforts.
9. Nahas - King has taken his place and he has lost his pace and defensive efforts. Players now brush off his tackles and he has lost the fitness edge he had over the other players striving for the same position on the ground.
10. Westoff - shows glimpses of brillance but his size continues to remain of problem. He is a project player but will need to show more this year or could be relegated to the 'could-have-been' pile.
What's your take....
Stripes
-
Where's Morton??
-
On form/recent performances it would have to be king.
Most of the others are still running on potential.
Hopefully that will change in the near future.
-
Where's Morton??
Morton is a midfielder now which is why I left him out. Like a good percentage of our other midfielders, he will be running into space, crumbing and providing scoring options but he is no longer a leading/stay at home forward thus his exclusion. On previous form you would have to say he is our best forward after Jack I agree.
-
Nason should be on the list. Played all last season as a half forward flanker
stuff our forwards are bad (well, young and some are bad). King is currently our 2nd best.
-
Where's Morton??
A fair question. Might shift somewhat to the mids but will still kick plenty of goals for us up forward.
Of those listed I would have to say King.
-
I would have said Morton too.
-
Reiwoldt is number 1 by a long way
Gap
Then
Kingy at 2
Then a big gap to White &/or Nason (they both played as forwards and therefore IMO should be included)
Griffiths gives us great hope ditto Taylor and to a lesser degree Vickery who shows enough but needs to be more aggressive IMHO.
The rest (the young ones) well they've got a long way to go
Staggered you would consider putting Post in your top 5 Stripes. Because of his lack of aggression and attack on the contest he doesn't even make my top 10. Actually I'd throw down back to try ands teach him to be 1/ accountable and 2/ defensive - plays for to loose for my liking
-
Staggered you would consider putting Post in your top 5 Stripes. Because of his lack of aggression and attack on the contest he doesn't even make my top 10. Actually I'd throw down back to try ands teach him to be 1/ accountable and 2/ defensive - plays for to loose for my liking
More of an indication of how light on we are with genuine forwards than a true reflection on his proven talent. My ranking of 5 is more to do with his potential than what he has shown to date. I agree that he is desperately in need of a better work ethic, defensive mindset and greater confidence but I don't think the backline is the place to gain these. Our backline appears to have better depth for height while our forwardline still remains light on. I feel a better place for him to learn these attributes remain playing for Coburg.
Stripes
-
quite simply put miller is the next best behind jack based purely on performance. now that is an indictment on list management.
-
I would add a couple more...Hicks and Gus.
I thought the 3 odd games Hicks played late last year had him slightly ahead of Nahas, but he needs to be elevated to the senior list.
Gus is an interesting one - with the new sub rule, I think we will find ruckmen resting in the fwd line like the old days. The teams dont have the luxury of resting a ruckman on the pine anymore and the 3 spots there will be left to the midfielders. Gus kicked a few last year and can take a mark and kick a goal - look to see him playing up fwd more with someone like a Vickery or a Post pinchhitting in the ruck when Gus is resting.
-
this thread is a great reminder as to why we still have a very long way to go before we can challenge for finals. :-[
-
this thread is a great reminder as to why we still have a very long way to go before we can challenge for finals. :-[
I agree. Once you start to look at specific areas of the ground and our proven talent and depth in positions, the painful truth is hard to ignore.... :'(
-
having a laugh. we took vickery at 8 because we desperately needed a quality ruckman. we were going to be patient and develop him.
what has changed not the rule change surely. we are still in need of a high quality ruckman yet all of a sudden vickery is a forward. its so funny no its mute talk about head in the sand stuff. is no one asking why we took vickery at 8. what all of a sudden has changed that says oops no hes not a ruckman but a forward.
i know what it is but ferals dont want to hear it. yep lets play all of post riewoldt griffiths taylor and now vickery as forwards. geez i reckon we have been there done that.
is no one even going to question this. talk about sheep what dimma and those gods in charge do and say must be good.
-
is no one asking why we took vickery at 8. what all of a sudden has changed
The interchange rule.
-
i know what it is but ferals dont want to hear it. yep lets play all of post riewoldt griffiths taylor and now vickery as forwards. geez i reckon we have been there done that.
Ever thought it may be that our key forwards are very young and as such won't be able to play out a full season holding down the position?
Given all ruckmen are going to have to develop an extra position, I see no reason why we can't develop Vickery as a forward while he grows into his body, he always reminded me of Spida Everitt as a youngster anyway and he was very handy up forward
-
having a laugh. we took vickery at 8 because we desperately needed a quality ruckman. we were going to be patient and develop him.
what has changed not the rule change surely. we are still in need of a high quality ruckman yet all of a sudden vickery is a forward. its so funny no its mute talk about head in the sand stuff. is no one asking why we took vickery at 8. what all of a sudden has changed that says oops no hes not a ruckman but a forward.
i know what it is but ferals dont want to hear it. yep lets play all of post riewoldt griffiths taylor and now vickery as forwards. geez i reckon we have been there done that.
is no one even going to question this. talk about sheep what dimma and those gods in charge do and say must be good.
stop thinking you are the only one that sees "the truth" and that everyone else is blinded like a first time lover ::) ....As you are perfectly aware (and have even stated on another site you hypocrite) Vickery is still an undersized ruckman and another preseason or 2 way from legitimately being able to ruck against the big boys. Thus playing him as more of a forward than ruckman this year eases the physical load on him and allows him to develop his body without gettin banged up AND he can still ruck in small bursts which is pefect for where hes at.. So whats the problem? ??? talk about a misinformed beatup :lol
-
stop thinking you are the only one that sees "the truth" and that everyone else is blinded like a first time lover ::) ....As you are perfectly aware (and have even stated on another site you hypocrite) Vickery is still an undersized ruckman and another preseason or 2 way from legitimately being able to ruck against the big boys. Thus playing him as more of a forward than ruckman this year eases the physical load on him and allows him to develop his body without gettin banged up AND he can still ruck in small bursts which is pefect for where hes at.. So whats the problem? ??? talk about a misinformed beatup :lol
:lol
Yep. :thumbsup
-
I am pretty sure that when Richmond drafted Vickery he weighed 89 kgs....Now two years later he is 95 kg.
Surely that is a step in the right direction.Maybe in 2014 after he turns 24 he might be over 100 kg and able to compete with the big boys.
-
having a laugh. we took vickery at 8 because we desperately needed a quality ruckman. we were going to be patient and develop him.
what has changed not the rule change surely. we are still in need of a high quality ruckman yet all of a sudden vickery is a forward. its so funny no its mute talk about head in the sand stuff. is no one asking why we took vickery at 8. what all of a sudden has changed that says oops no hes not a ruckman but a forward.
i know what it is but ferals dont want to hear it. yep lets play all of post riewoldt griffiths taylor and now vickery as forwards. geez i reckon we have been there done that.
is no one even going to question this. talk about sheep what dimma and those gods in charge do and say must be good.
stop thinking you are the only one that sees "the truth" and that everyone else is blinded like a first time lover ::) ....As you are perfectly aware (and have even stated on another site you hypocrite) Vickery is still an undersized ruckman and another preseason or 2 way from legitimately being able to ruck against the big boys. Thus playing him as more of a forward than ruckman this year eases the physical load on him and allows him to develop his body without gettin banged up AND he can still ruck in small bursts which is pefect for where hes at.. So whats the problem? ??? talk about a misinformed beatup :lol
as usual ferals dont see..
the point being made is if vickery plays as a forward what do we do with taylor griffiths post.
i see you think we can play all of jack vickery griffiths taylor and post in the one team.
let vickery be a ruckman develop him at coburg where he belongs in performing the ruck role atm. let the genuine forwards play in their positions. common sense says you would rather see all of post jck griffiths and taylor play as a kp in front of vickery.
common sense says vickery is the one ruckman on the list who may be quality the others are plodders.
the whole idea of drafting vickery was to try and find a RUCKMAN OF QUALITY of the cox ilk. instead we are hell bent on playing battlers in the role and to top it off by playing vickery as a forward stop the development of a real kpp. when vickery is ready bring him in as a ruckman bloody hell we really need to find a quality ruckman and we sure as hell need to play our genuine kpfs.
if we are so hell bent on finding a support ruckman in the interim play griffiths or post in the role.
-
Vickery was never going to be a Cox (midfielder) type, he was always a ruckman/forward
-
Vickery was never going to be a Cox (midfielder) type, he was always a ruckman/forward
what rubbish he was drafted for his run and agility . but your right he was drafted primarily as a ruckman who could go forward and perhaps kick a goal or two just like all ruckmen are expected to.
here we have atm 3 talls who are physically ready to go jack 195/93. griffiths 198/98 post 195/95 these blokes dont desperately need to bulk up to compete they are there already. all can mark.
take a look at vickery still undersized lacking ticker ave just 8 possesions a game and takes about 1.7 marks a game. and you people want to place him as a permanent forward in whos place, its laugable.
you people want to load up the forward line with dinosaurs with little or no regard to run and pace in the forward half.not a mention. just sheep following the line of the club.
-
I think hardwick has decided that with the new interchange rules you want your ruckmen to also be forwards (or backs?) rather than resting on the bench.
For what it's worth i agree about him playing at coburg, he doesn't seem ready yet.
I gather the thinking is that you don't get as physically punished as a forward (or anywhere else) as you do in the ruck. I'd imagine he'd only do short stints in the ruck, being more of a forward that has runs on the ball.
I'd reckon he'd more than likely be competing for a spot with the likes of post rather than playing along side him. Derickx, possibly, as well.
Griffiths seems to be earmarked long term as FF. I couldn't see him rucking with the shoulder problems he has had.
But don't confuse what people say they think should/will happen with what Hardwick actually does.
-
having a laugh. we took vickery at 8 because we desperately needed a quality ruckman. we were going to be patient and develop him.
what has changed not the rule change surely. we are still in need of a high quality ruckman yet all of a sudden vickery is a forward. its so funny no its mute talk about head in the sand stuff. is no one asking why we took vickery at 8. what all of a sudden has changed that says oops no hes not a ruckman but a forward.
i know what it is but ferals dont want to hear it. yep lets play all of post riewoldt griffiths taylor and now vickery as forwards. geez i reckon we have been there done that.
is no one even going to question this. talk about sheep what dimma and those gods in charge do and say must be good.
stop thinking you are the only one that sees "the truth" and that everyone else is blinded like a first time lover ::) ....As you are perfectly aware (and have even stated on another site you hypocrite) Vickery is still an undersized ruckman and another preseason or 2 way from legitimately being able to ruck against the big boys. Thus playing him as more of a forward than ruckman this year eases the physical load on him and allows him to develop his body without gettin banged up AND he can still ruck in small bursts which is pefect for where hes at.. So whats the problem? ??? talk about a misinformed beatup :lol
as usual ferals dont see..
the point being made is if vickery plays as a forward what do we do with taylor griffiths post.
i see you think we can play all of jack vickery griffiths taylor and post in the one team.
let vickery be a ruckman develop him at coburg where he belongs in performing the ruck role atm. let the genuine forwards play in their positions. common sense says you would rather see all of post jck griffiths and taylor play as a kp in front of vickery.
common sense says vickery is the one ruckman on the list who may be quality the others are plodders.
the whole idea of drafting vickery was to try and find a RUCKMAN OF QUALITY of the cox ilk. instead we are hell bent on playing battlers in the role and to top it off by playing vickery as a forward stop the development of a real kpp. when vickery is ready bring him in as a ruckman bloody hell we really need to find a quality ruckman and we sure as hell need to play our genuine kpfs.
if we are so hell bent on finding a support ruckman in the interim play griffiths or post in the role.
Its called rotating all those young developing fwds throughout the season brightspark, bc common sense suggests not all of them will be playing in the same fwd line each and every week... common sense suggests they will all at some stage need to go back to coburg for development in the twos for extended periods this season, so once again in the name of common sense whats the problem?