One-Eyed Richmond Forum

Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: one-eyed on March 01, 2012, 03:17:31 AM

Title: Richmond has the 4th youngest list (Age)
Post by: one-eyed on March 01, 2012, 03:17:31 AM
A graphic from today's Age showing we will have the 4th youngest and 3rd least experienced list in 2012 ...

(http://images.theage.com.au/2012/02/29/3083945/ipad_0103footy-420x0.jpg)

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/numbers-personnel-point-to-the-hawks-20120229-1u3go.html
Title: Re: Richmond has the 4th youngest list (Age)
Post by: WilliamPowell on March 01, 2012, 06:48:51 AM
So what

That's NO EXCUSE

 :rollin :rollin :rollin

 :jump
Title: Re: Richmond has the 4th youngest list (Age)
Post by: Dubstep Dookie on March 01, 2012, 07:45:44 AM
Only 60 days younger than Carlton.

No excuses anymore.

Time to walk the walk.
Title: Re: Richmond has the 4th youngest list (Age)
Post by: gerkin greg on March 01, 2012, 09:18:08 AM
I think the more relevant stats are average games played and 100 game players.

Need average games played to be up around 60 and at least 10 hundred gamers to challenge.

Doesn't mean we can't make the 8 if we've got the bottle
Title: Re: Richmond has the 4th youngest list (Age)
Post by: Mr Magic on March 01, 2012, 09:49:43 AM
I think the more relevant stats are average games played and 100 game players.

Agree hence why the club was so keen to get games into youngsters last season.
Also in an age where there's more and more mature players coming into the system, the age stat is less relevant.
Experience is the key.
Title: Re: Richmond has the 4th youngest list (Age)
Post by: Loui Tufga on March 01, 2012, 11:12:35 AM
Average games played means nothing if you only an average player ::)
Many games have been gifted to the Average over the last couple of seasons, lets hope that this year Hardwick stays true to his word and makes players earn there spot in the team!
Title: Re: Richmond has the 4th youngest list (Age)
Post by: gerkin greg on March 01, 2012, 11:15:07 AM
reported for sledging Tivendale  ::)
Title: Re: Richmond has the 4th youngest list (Age)
Post by: Coach on March 01, 2012, 11:17:20 AM
If anything could get Donuts to sign back up it's that Tiv comment :lol
Title: Re: Richmond has the 4th youngest list (Age)
Post by: Willy on March 01, 2012, 11:17:43 AM
reported for sledging Tivendale  ::)

Expelled for illusion to McMahon.
Title: Re: Richmond has the 4th youngest list (Age)
Post by: mat073 on March 01, 2012, 01:39:44 PM
Back in 2002 -2003 we had 10 plus players with 100 games experience and our average age was over 24....Oh and we were crap too.
Title: Re: Richmond has the 4th youngest list (Age)
Post by: Loui Tufga on March 01, 2012, 01:41:11 PM
(http://www.emoticonsfree.org/wp-content/uploads/sign0033.gif) (http://www.emoticonsfree.org/free-sign-emoticons.html)
Title: Re: Richmond has the 4th youngest list (Age)
Post by: Hellenic Tiger on March 02, 2012, 09:20:01 PM
Means squat.
Apart from the Wallace tenure for the most part in the last 25 years we have had pretty young teams.
Hasn't transferred to onfield success.
It's the quality of those youngsters that will determine your success.
Title: Re: Richmond has the 4th youngest list (Age)
Post by: Francois Jackson on March 02, 2012, 10:48:54 PM
Means squat.
Apart from the Wallace tenure for the most part in the last 25 years we have had pretty young teams.
Hasn't transferred to onfield success.
It's the quality of those youngsters that will determine your success.

100% on the mark as most of you are.

Youth and age are only figures to support an argument. It means nothing

That person who said Blues are only 60 days older is proof its the quality of player that will determine your spot in the ladder.

Barring a Fremantle injury crisis of 2011 there is not one other excuse for not making the 8 this year. Not one
Title: Re: Richmond has the 4th youngest list (Age)
Post by: WA Tiger on March 02, 2012, 11:36:39 PM
So what

That's NO EXCUSE

 :rollin :rollin :rollin

 :jump

Gee you are really stalking my arse lately aren't you, maybe the mods will ban you for a bit....... :whistle :whistle

Honestly though, look at the differences, there is a hair line difference in the ages of all clubs.......and the better ones have more experience with a year age difference......so whats all the  jumping around about..

Look at the table, there NO EXCUSES!!!!!!
Title: Re: Richmond has the 4th youngest list (Age)
Post by: WA Tiger on March 02, 2012, 11:45:53 PM
Means squat.
Apart from the Wallace tenure for the most part in the last 25 years we have had pretty young teams.
Hasn't transferred to onfield success.
It's the quality of those youngsters that will determine your success.

100% on the mark as most of you are.

Youth and age are only figures to support an argument. It means nothing

That person who said Blues are only 60 days older is proof its the quality of player that will determine your spot in the ladder.

Barring a Fremantle injury crisis of 2011 there is not one other excuse for not making the 8 this year. Not one

God don't tell me that's two of us that can see this..... :clapping :clapping :clapping

NO EXCUSES (barring injury)
Title: Re: Richmond has the 4th youngest list (Age)
Post by: Mr Magic on March 03, 2012, 12:16:18 AM
Means squat.
Apart from the Wallace tenure for the most part in the last 25 years we have had pretty young teams.
Hasn't transferred to onfield success.
It's the quality of those youngsters that will determine your success.

100% on the mark as most of you are.

Youth and age are only figures to support an argument. It means nothing

That person who said Blues are only 60 days older is proof its the quality of player that will determine your spot in the ladder.

Barring a Fremantle injury crisis of 2011 there is not one other excuse for not making the 8 this year. Not one

God don't tell me that's two of us that can see this..... :clapping :clapping :clapping

NO EXCUSES (barring injury)

I'm with you. I fully expect us to make the 8 (barring injury).

We've got one of the best young cores in the game right now. 6-8 has to be what's expected. Before anyone shoots it down, even the players are talking this way.

Two years of low expectation (rebuilding) does not equate to 3. Stuff being conditioned to mediocrity, time to raise the bar again at Tigerland.
Title: Re: Richmond has the 4th youngest list (Age)
Post by: dwaino on March 03, 2012, 12:24:11 AM
If anyone caught tonight's game, then age means diddly squat. Cats had 8 premiership players out there and 11 blokes who haven't seen a game yet and their structures were well drilled and executed perfectly. Granted they only played the Suns, but training in an elite, premiership environment and with massive competition obviously plays a bigger role than how many games you've played.
Title: Re: Richmond has the 4th youngest list (Age)
Post by: WA Tiger on March 03, 2012, 12:58:23 AM
C'mon WP come in  with your pessimistic comments ........... :cheers :bow

Funny how other sides can do it but so many here seem to think we cant....or really only want to sit on the fence shooting at both sides....of the argument ::) ::)

We can or we can't make it...make a choice, we will or we won't...get off your fence...

NO EXCUSES!!!! :lol
Title: Re: Richmond has the 4th youngest list (Age)
Post by: Dubstep Dookie on March 03, 2012, 08:26:50 AM
We will make the 8, and will finish as high as 6th (barring injuries to key players).
Title: Re: Richmond has the 4th youngest list (Age)
Post by: MADTIGER2010 on March 03, 2012, 10:52:45 AM
When Moore, Tuck and Miller retire and we draft more kids we'll be maybe 2nd youngest
Title: Re: Richmond has the 4th youngest list (Age)
Post by: gerkin greg on March 03, 2012, 12:51:29 PM
Back in 2002 -2003 we had 10 plus players with 100 games experience and our average age was over 24....Oh and we were crap too.

We certainly know how to buck trends and are THE authority on what it takes to be crap  :lol
be interested to know what was the list shape in 2001?

Look, at the end of the day it's about the quality of the football department.

Average games played means nothing if you only an average player ::)
Many games have been gifted to the Average over the last couple of seasons, lets hope that this year Hardwick stays true to his word and makes players earn there spot in the team!

Plenty of average players played in premiership sides. If your football department is up to it, it will get the most out of the average blokes - or wont draft them in the first place  ;D

But you're right, Rockcock must stay true to his word.  :pray
Title: Re: Richmond has the 4th youngest list (Age)
Post by: RedanTiger on March 03, 2012, 07:18:23 PM

Look, at the end of the day it's about the quality of the football department.

Plenty of average players played in premiership sides. If your football department is up to it, it will get the most out of the average blokes - or wont draft them in the first place  ;D

Bingo Gerks.
Nice to see someone talk about the entire Football Department and not just lay it all on the senior coach.
Title: Re: Richmond has the 4th youngest list (Age)
Post by: Dubstep Dookie on March 03, 2012, 07:33:59 PM
 :cuddles