One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: one-eyed on October 28, 2012, 03:06:38 AM
-
Tiger Trade Central interview with Craig Cameron...
http://bigpondvideo.com/RichmondTV/499970/Tiger%20Trade%20Central:%20wrap%20up/
Summary
* Happy to get Aaron Edwards. Adds more depth to our forward line. We were this year too reliant on Jack going inside forward 50 especially without Vickery there. We also lost Miller who has retired.
* With injuries hitting us in the middle of the year, we really dropped away. Got to continue to build up our depth to give our members/supporters finals.
* Free agency - very well planned thanks to Blair Hartley. We were also in a position where both players were keen to come to our club. Also had a risk inside forward 50 as far as goalkicking so went to Edwards. Didn't cost us any of our early draft picks so happy to get him.
* As far as the free agency/trade period, it worked pretty smoothly. We may have thought differently if we lost a player to free agency but there was compensation for clubs that lost players. More players moved clubs so the players (AFLPA) got what they wanted. It went for a long time (a month) so that may be reviewed. Mind you trades were done in the last minute so that will always happen regardless of time offered.
* Blair Hartley and Francis Jackson always work close together regarding our recruiting. Right down to asking FJ about us losing a late draft pick and bringing in Edwards. FJ was fine with that compared to what would be available that late in the draft. At this stage it looks like we're going into the draft with 4 picks. All of them inside the first two rounds so FJ is happy.
* National draft is Nov 22. Over the next 4 weeks, recruiting dept will fully analyse the players (psych. profiles etc) they've followed for the past 18 months and get our draft order in place.
* Targeting in the draft? well the best players we can achieve [laughs]. Looking at our list we need more midfield depth. Think we've taken care of positional areas via free agency and trades. 1st round of draft you go with best available but 2nd round may look for type but that's up to FJ.
* Players start coming back November 1. Coaches back next week.
-
More midfield depth stuff me, how about a top notch tall defender. And no, Port Adelaide's best dressed gardener doesn't count, Craig.
-
More midfield depth stuff me, how about a top notch tall defender. And no, Port Adelaide's best dressed gardener doesn't count, Craig.
Maybe he is good enough to fill a need for the next 2-3 years until Grimes, Griffiths, Astbury develop enough to be that top notch defender?
-
Perhaps. ;D
-
More midfield depth stuff me, how about a top notch tall defender. And no, Port Adelaide's best dressed gardener doesn't count, Craig.
gotta agree list management and this bloke just dont go.
makes you wonder just how objective he is.
we have addressed very little if he thinks we have addressed positional needs he is deluded. i have to ask myself does he even have a model he works to and does he even assess the players we do have.
i can see 5 different types we need in varying numbers.
1/ kpds depending on utilities and where they end up as many as two. post,rance, chaplin, grimes is not adequate numbers.
2/ ruckmen we need two ruckmen especially if vickery is going to play as a kpf cant he see we rob peter to pay paul.derickx is a for/ruck as well who has done little at 25 we need an immediate backup for maric and we need a genuine rruckman to develop.
3/ we have just 2 genuine med forwards we could do with another.
4/ kpfs depending on those utilities again as many as 2 as few as 1. riewoldt, elton, vickery who is to be a ruck/for is it. its adequate if griffiths and astbury are developed as forwards but still one short.
5/ 4 mids both inside and out outside pace and skill we really lack in. tuck is 31 and foley hardly ever on the park we need to cover for them.
we are just average joe blos posting on the internet but most of us can see the holes in the list why cant the bloke who is supposed to maintain the list and balance it out.
6 freakin yrs this blokes been in the role and he still cant get it right.
do we do reviews of the footy dept obviously not.
-
More midfield depth stuff me, how about a top notch tall defender. And no, Port Adelaide's best dressed gardener doesn't count, Craig.
Yeah we need another defender, like there was barely a game we didnt have an ovewhelming surplus of i50 over our opponent yet failed to win and you deduce from that we need defenders, whoa what planet you on dude :lol...not enough goalkickers cost us a finals spot, blind freddy could see that :shh
-
Interestingly Cameron still mentioned we'll be using 4 picks in the draft. I'd guess we'll have to wait to Wednesday's first list lodgement for the answer on how we'll free up that extra spot on our list.
As far as our side we do need to bolster our midfield depth. Not just in terms of numbers but also the quality of that depth. Whenever our A-graders like Cotch are rested during a game we are vunerable to bursts from the opposition via centre clearance goals. Our next retirements will also be smalls/mids (Tucky and Newy) so they'll need to be replaced.
The other issue is our rucks. Need a ready-made spare just in case Maric or Vickery go down. The difficult thing is you need to attract a decent ruckman that is willing to accept he'll be playing for Coburg most of the year if they both stay on the park.
-
gotta agree list management and this bloke just dont go.
makes you wonder just how objective he is.
we have addressed very little if he thinks we have addressed positional needs he is deluded. i have to ask myself does he even have a model he works to and does he even assess the players we do have.
i can see 5 different types we need in varying numbers.
1/ kpds depending on utilities and where they end up as many as two. post,rance, chaplin, grimes is not adequate numbers.
2/ ruckmen we need two ruckmen especially if vickery is going to play as a kpf cant he see we rob peter to pay paul.derickx is a for/ruck as well who has done little at 25 we need an immediate backup for maric and we need a genuine rruckman to develop.
3/ we have just 2 genuine med forwards we could do with another.
4/ kpfs depending on those utilities again as many as 2 as few as 1. riewoldt, elton, vickery who is to be a ruck/for is it. its adequate if griffiths and astbury are developed as forwards but still one short.
5/ 4 mids both inside and out outside pace and skill we really lack in. tuck is 31 and foley hardly ever on the park we need to cover for them.
we are just average joe blos posting on the internet but most of us can see the holes in the list why cant the bloke who is supposed to maintain the list and balance it out.
6 freakin yrs this blokes been in the role and he still cant get it right.
do we do reviews of the footy dept obviously not.
You just complained about list balance but then say we need more of every position except HBF's? I reckon he addressed positional needs in a sense he now has the bare minimum numbers required. Now it's all about depth.
P.S i don't reckon we need anymore medium forwards. Only need one permanent one and just other midfielders who can play forward to rotate through
-
gotta agree list management and this bloke just dont go.
makes you wonder just how objective he is.
we have addressed very little if he thinks we have addressed positional needs he is deluded. i have to ask myself does he even have a model he works to and does he even assess the players we do have.
i can see 5 different types we need in varying numbers.
1/ kpds depending on utilities and where they end up as many as two. post,rance, chaplin, grimes is not adequate numbers.
2/ ruckmen we need two ruckmen especially if vickery is going to play as a kpf cant he see we rob peter to pay paul.derickx is a for/ruck as well who has done little at 25 we need an immediate backup for maric and we need a genuine rruckman to develop.
3/ we have just 2 genuine med forwards we could do with another.
4/ kpfs depending on those utilities again as many as 2 as few as 1. riewoldt, elton, vickery who is to be a ruck/for is it. its adequate if griffiths and astbury are developed as forwards but still one short.
5/ 4 mids both inside and out outside pace and skill we really lack in. tuck is 31 and foley hardly ever on the park we need to cover for them.
we are just average joe blos posting on the internet but most of us can see the holes in the list why cant the bloke who is supposed to maintain the list and balance it out.
6 freakin yrs this blokes been in the role and he still cant get it right.
do we do reviews of the footy dept obviously not.
You just complained about list balance but then say we need more of every position except HBF's? I reckon he addressed positional needs in a sense he now has the bare minimum numbers required. Now it's all about depth.
P.S i don't reckon we need anymore medium forwards. Only need one permanent one and just other midfielders who can play forward to rotate through
and thats the point of the complaint. when craig cameron says we have addressed positional needs in fa hes wrong.we have needs in most areas and none have been addressed or fixed.
we all need to look past the starting 22.
if he thinks we have addressed kpd stocks he is very wrong. even with chaplain and we all allow both griffiths and astbury are defenders we dont have the required numbers.
if griffiths and astbury are defenders where does that leave our forward stocks. the word for it is dire.
it is simple allow
16 talls of which you have 4 ruckmen 6 kpds 6 kpfs and you have a mirror image of most teams structure. your talls take up 7 or 8 spots in your team. you field 2 teams 2 x 8 is 16.
if the talls take up 8 spots in a 22 it leaves 14 spots for mids / flankers in your team. field two teams 2 x 14 is 28. the balance of mids to flankers can vary depending on many factors.
combine them and you have 16 + 28 = 44 it leaves you with 4 spares in a list of 48 to do with as you please.
it is a workable common sense model.
as i said in my post i have to wonder if cameron has ever worked to a model. and i really have to question if he does independent assesments of our players. the constant resigning of ordinary players with longish contacts would suggest not.
just on hbfers.
i didnt include them because we have
newman 30yo, houli 24yo, morris 23yo, batchelor 21 yo, dea 21 yo, ellis 19 yo, plus we have the likes of deledio 25yo and conca 20 yo more than capable of playing back there. it is not a critical area has a decent spread of experience and age groups. it caters to both injury and long term development.
all sides play 3 hbf of varying sizes in their 22 we do as well the simple process is to mirror your 22 and have two of every position. with newman nearing the end and ellis conca deledio being primarily mids id say we can do with one more.
-
sometimes we tend to go too far in disecting and re arranging statistics.To me they just become a blur at times.Football is a very emotional sport and sometimes you have to go with that,or with what we call a gut feel.There is a place for stats and graphs etc but it shouldnt be the final say
-
So Claw, you believe we should cut some HBF's out to make room for midfeilders forwards and tall backs?
I think we should maybe wait until after the draft period to freak out. We have what, 4 picks and 2-4 rookie picks depending on the outcome of the rule change. That could see us even out a little bit more.
-
Hartley, Francis and Cameron should get together and work out why White, McGuane and Jackson are still on the list. Stuffwits ::)
-
@Claw - when he says addressed I don't think he means completed. Just that we are rectifying the issues.
Did we need another KPD - certainly did (got Chaplin)
Did we need a HFF - we had one 18yo this year so I'd say yes (got Knights)
Did we need a back-up KPF type - I'd say we did seems we played McGuane there half a season. (got Edwards)
Don't think that necessarily means he's happy with the depth of those positions but we can draft those types. Realistically we have 4 KPD (Rance, Chaplin, Grimes, Post) 3 KPF (Riewoldt, Vickery, Edwards) and 3 swingmen (Griffiths, Astbury, McGuane) who could all play next year with 1 KPF (Elton) and 1 KPD (Darrou) who are in very early development. Plus Batch can play KPD as well. How many do we need?
HFF - we only have 2 pure half forwards (Knights and O'Hanlon) but realistically we can only fit 1 in maximum anyway. We have a luxury of playing our gun mids as medium forwards anyway. (Cotch, Deledio, Martin) This means we almost don't need a permanent medium forward unless they can at least pinch-hit in the centre.
-
Hartley, Francis and Cameron should get together and work out why White, McGuane and Jackson are still on the list. Stuffwits ::)
:clapping :clapping
-
More midfield depth stuff me, how about a top notch tall defender. And no, Port Adelaide's best dressed gardener doesn't count, Craig.
Yeah we need another defender, like there was barely a game we didnt have an ovewhelming surplus of i50 over our opponent yet failed to win and you deduce from that we need defenders, whoa what planet you on dude :lol...not enough goalkickers cost us a finals spot, blind freddy could see that :shh
Last ride for Coach...
BJ, blind freddy saw Petrie bend over Rance and win the Roos the game. Blind Freddy saw Jayden Post play like a stuffing gimp in round one (again, a big role in us losing the game). And I can also say that Blind Freddy used to sit with me at Port games and he reckons Troy Chaplin a soft, overrated guy who is going to be nothing more than an average player for Richmond. But he does think that two blokes that played reserves all year for their clubs will solve our forward problems, so what the stuff would Blind Freddy actually know?
And last time I checked, getting the ball inside 50 or trying keep it from going inside your defensive 50, has little to do with your defenders. I'm talking about when the ball does go down there. You know, when the opposition isolate that big key forward who will then proceed to have his way with our defenders. Gimp.
but anyway, seeya boys. she's been fun
-
More midfield depth stuff me, how about a top notch tall defender. And no, Port Adelaide's best dressed gardener doesn't count, Craig.
St Kilda delisted Dean Polo. Didn't he play CHB in a reserves game in 2005 and wipe the floor with Buddy Franklin? Maybe we could get him.
-
No effing way.
I saw him play yesterday. Even MCain would reject him.
Even at a level 2 or 3 steps down from AFL it was the same old, same old.
Alroy gilligan has been continuing his good WA form though. someone may give him another go at a rookie spot