One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: one-eyed on June 12, 2007, 01:30:47 PM
-
Plough often talks about the lack of experience in our team. Here's the stats from the weekend of average age, average no. of games, height, weight and no. of players in each games played category.
Team Age Games Hgt Wgt >150 100-149 50-99 <50
Sydney 26.5 123.6 187.6 88.5 7 6 5 4
Essendon 26.1 119.2 188.4 87.5 8 6 1 7
Adelaide 26.3 108.4 187.5 87.4 6 5 4 7
Fremantle 25.9 106.5 187.6 90.3 7 5 3 7
Melbourne 25.6 101.4 187.6 87.3 6 5 2 9
Bulldogs 24.12 101.2 186.9 86.5 5 3 7 7
Kangaroos 25.1 97.8 186.6 88.7 6 4 4 8
West Coast 24.4 90.2 187.7 87.8 4 7 4 7
St Kilda 25.4 89.9 187.0 87.5 5 4 6 7
Geelong 24.9 88.1 188.6 90.6 3 7 5 7
Collingwood 24.6 87.3 186.6 86.8 4 7 1 10
Port Adel 24.11 85.5 187.3 88.0 6 2 5 9
Carlton 24.5 84.0 188.5 88.8 3 4 6 9
Hawthorn 24.1 73.6 185.9 89.7 3 2 7 10
Richmond 23.5 61.0 186.3 85.8 3 1 4 14
Brisbane 23.2 57.2 188.3 87.0 3 2 1 16
-
Very interesting ststs, Mt. Thanks. No wonder we're struggling. Apart from Brisbane the differences are significant.
Maybe the media should stop saying Hawthorn are "the youngest team" etc.
14 out of 22 less than 50 games!
-
Some people have been jumping up and down saying "play the kids, play the kids" which is all very well but then after the games there's always the comment about lack of experience. Can't have your cake and eat it as well.
-
We all know that we are a young side. The stats are not really surprising.
You have to think a bit more qualitatively and ask yourself where you think the high water mark will be with the current setup.
Not even Jackstar would dispute that this team will improve, but where we end up is a matter for reasoned debate.
If things continue the way they are I can not see this side developing into a top 4 side. Top 10 yes, 5th to 8th, probably, but not top 4. I don't believe the current coaching setup has managed to improve the skills of the experienced players or more importantly the youngsters anywhere near as much as say Leigh Matthews and the Brisbane coaches have with their young guys (I KNOW there are $$$ differences between our setup and the Lions, but we just have to set the bar higher, that is a reality). Despite throwing all of our eggs in the one basket with the draft with regards to pacy outside types we only sporadically play fast free flowing footy and to my eyes we still struggle to find ways into the forward 50.
On top of this the accountability I was hoping for is not there - we still have blokes like Tivendale and Hall on the list. If there is an economic reason (I don't understand the complexities of the draft/list very well at all), please let me know, but these guys are not up to it, never have been, and never will be. Whats more they don't provide any leadership for the young blokes whatsoever. Can we develop a culture where being an average footballer puts you in the queue at Centrelink please!
For what its worth, I don't know if Wallace has a clue or not. He can be very convincing at times and look and sound deluded at other times. I don't think a change in coach will be very productive mainly for financial reasons. At the end of 2009 Wallace will be up for renewal and I think that even if we have a young list at that point in time, if we are not yet challenging for September action it might be the right time for a change. Sometimes you need to shake things up to avoid a culture of failure becoming permanent in the young blokes. So we need to look at our plan for 2009 and make sure that we are still planning for the future and avoiding the kinds of short-term things spud did to save his arze. Review all our assistant positions and make the new deals VERY performance based - get Miller to set some goals for the long term and term the contracts to reward the staff if we score 100+ plus consistently with a young side.