One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: one-eyed on June 19, 2009, 04:31:47 AM
-
Some interesting points mentioned in Melbourne's midseason football review that may apply to the Tigers as well. Especially point 7 about top picks taking 6-7 years to mature.....
http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/rfnews/melbourne-plots-renaissance/2009/06/18/1244918138710.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
■1. That Melbourne, already paying around the minimum salary cap of 92.5 per cent, intended to "front-load" contracts just to reach that mark in the next couple of years. Harrington, when working in a similar role at North Melbourne, saw the Roos fall foul of the AFL Players Association when they acknowledged they were paying below the minimum.
While there has been speculation that the Demons could eventually reach a "real" salary cap of 86 or 87 per cent a figure that would be officially 92.5 per cent by dint of paying some players higher wages up front, in the first year of a contract Schwab said this was possible, but not certain. "We possibly could, but there's also going to be pressures from the introduction of two clubs."
■2. Melbourne has long lacked stars, and needs them, more than any specific type of player. "We want to pick AFL players, actually get some stars," said Prendergast, who made talent rather than positional need the priority in last year's drafting.
If players in the draft pool were similarly rated, then needs would enter the picture. "The other philosophy is that we can't fix everything in just one hit," said Prendergast. "And that was very much the philosophy last year.
"But we'll certainly be drafting on the basis of that bloke there could be a superstar."
■3. While stars of any description were the priority, Bailey felt that a midfielder with excellent kicking skills and a contested-marking forward were the most critical needs. "I still think a good kick in the middle of the ground, kicking to a contested-marking forward, is still a great way to go."
The coach said that tall defender Colin Garland was capable, however, of filling a key forward spot. "He could give us that opportunity as a forward." Jack Watts, obviously, would be a key forward target in the future.
■4. Melbourne was not really in a position to emulate Hawthorn's successful model and trade away seasoned mid-20s players with high currency for top-20 draft picks. While the Demons had closely examined the "premiership models" of Hawthorn and Geelong in particular, their capacity to trade away mid-20s players for picks (eg Jonathan Hay and Nathan Thompson) was limited, simply because they didn't have many players in that category.
"Hawthorn
started their process around 2004," said Schwab. "But they actually got to the preliminary final in 2001 with a relatively young team. We got to the 2006 finals with a team reaching the end of its career. What that's done is create a generation gap on your list, and our generation is players aged 22 to 27."
■5. Expanding upon the scope for trading, Bailey said that Sylvia, now developing some consistency in his performances, had never been prospective trade bait. "It's never entered my mind."
■6. The Demons were reluctant to specify precisely when they saw the club entering premiership contention.
"And we're not putting time frames on dates of when our club evolves into a
hopefully premiership," said Schwab.
■7. That said, Harrington said the research suggested that it took a team six or seven years to develop from scratch into a premiership contender. "So the maturing of those great picks is about six or seven years."
The upshot is plain. If 2008 was year zero for Melbourne, then the premiership window would open around 2014.
But Hawthorn has shown that it can happen ahead of schedule.
-
Some interesting points mentioned in Melbourne's midseason football review that may apply to the Tigers as well. Especially point 7 about top picks taking 6-7 years to mature.....
......
"Hawthorn
started their process around 2004," said Schwab. "But they actually got to the preliminary final in 2001 with a relatively young team."
......
■7. That said, Harrington said the research suggested that it took a team six or seven years to develop from scratch into a premiership contender. "So the maturing of those great picks is about six or seven years."
But Hawthorn has shown that it can happen ahead of schedule.
Actually, the article argues against itself here. Contrary to popular belief, Hawthorn started their development from scratch much earlier - what commenced in 2004 with Clarkson et al was merely another phase. They made the preliminary final in 2001 with a relatively young team, assessed and removed the list cloggers, traded for picks in the 2004 phase and won a premiership in 2008. Minimum of seven years to my thinking.
-
Some interesting points mentioned in Melbourne's midseason football review that may apply to the Tigers as well. Especially point 7 about top picks taking 6-7 years to mature.....
......
"Hawthorn
started their process around 2004," said Schwab. "But they actually got to the preliminary final in 2001 with a relatively young team."
......
■7. That said, Harrington said the research suggested that it took a team six or seven years to develop from scratch into a premiership contender. "So the maturing of those great picks is about six or seven years."
But Hawthorn has shown that it can happen ahead of schedule.
Actually, the article argues against itself here. Contrary to popular belief, Hawthorn started their development from scratch much earlier - what commenced in 2004 with Clarkson et al was merely another phase. They made the preliminary final in 2001 with a relatively young team, assessed and removed the list cloggers, traded for picks in the 2004 phase and won a premiership in 2008. Minimum of seven years to my thinking.
So if it is seven years and we commenced at the end of 2004 then our window opens at the end of 2011 - who was it again who suggested 2011 will be when our team reaches its ability to be a consistent finals team??
-
So if it is seven years and we commenced at the end of 2004 then our window opens at the end of 2011 - who was it again who suggested 2011 will be when our team reaches its ability to be a consistent finals team??
Yes, good point.
Terry was already aware of this, hence the 2011 statement.
The only question will be if the players that were drafted are good enough.
-
The only question will be if the players that were drafted are good enough.
But every club I reckon if they had to turn over a complete list will have some hit and misses with the success rate of players they draft.
We've had some duds, but that's not surprising you'd get a few.
I guess we'll find out with how many are still with us in five years time I guess.
-
lmao when clubs sit back and throw draft names up on the board of future sides...can someone throw into the room the proportion of draft pix that go onto play 50 then 100 games. Higher proportion of course if they are top4 pix. at this point their vision is nothing more than a jumbled lot of names...no more or less than us putting gourdis up at FF, gilligan alongside of him..browne first ruck silvestor at FB then nudging ea other sheesh, havent we gotta a premiership side :lol
-
Some interesting points mentioned in Melbourne's midseason football review that may apply to the Tigers as well. Especially point 7 about top picks taking 6-7 years to mature.....
......
"Hawthorn
started their process around 2004," said Schwab. "But they actually got to the preliminary final in 2001 with a relatively young team."
......
■7. That said, Harrington said the research suggested that it took a team six or seven years to develop from scratch into a premiership contender. "So the maturing of those great picks is about six or seven years."
But Hawthorn has shown that it can happen ahead of schedule.
Actually, the article argues against itself here. Contrary to popular belief, Hawthorn started their development from scratch much earlier - what commenced in 2004 with Clarkson et al was merely another phase. They made the preliminary final in 2001 with a relatively young team, assessed and removed the list cloggers, traded for picks in the 2004 phase and won a premiership in 2008. Minimum of seven years to my thinking.
So if it is seven years and we commenced at the end of 2004 then our window opens at the end of 2011 - who was it again who suggested 2011 will be when our team reaches its ability to be a consistent finals team??
IMO Terry was out by a couple of years because the structure of our list still has holes and means we won't be ready by 2011. We lack big key forwards first of all and our ruck stocks are still young. Even if we were to draft a young gun key or two in this upcoming draft like Hawthorn did in 2004 then it'll still take them 3-4 years to reach their potential. Richo took to his 3rd year before he took the comp by storm before doing his knee :(. IIRC Nick Riewoldt took about 3 years as well. So 2012-13 is probably closer to the mark. This also fits in with Foley turning 26, Lids 25, Cotch 22 and all those in between who make it hitting that peak age bracket together.
-
■1. That Melbourne, already paying around the minimum salary cap of 92.5 per cent, intended to "front-load" contracts just to reach that mark in the next couple of years. Harrington, when working in a similar role at North Melbourne, saw the Roos fall foul of the AFL Players Association when they acknowledged they were paying below the minimum.
While there has been speculation that the Demons could eventually reach a "real" salary cap of 86 or 87 per cent a figure that would be officially 92.5 per cent by dint of paying some players higher wages up front, in the first year of a contract Schwab said this was possible, but not certain. "We possibly could, but there's also going to be pressures from the introduction of two clubs."
This 92.5% minimum should be abolished. It hurts clubs who are rebuilding from scratch as it forces you to overpay players on your list to reach the minimum whereas at a stronger club that player would receive less. It was only introduced to prevent Fitzroy hanging on to survival by paying something like only 10% while getting thrashed onfield by 150 points every week. It isn't needed anymore. Abolishing the minimum would also give a club greater flexibility to chase after a number of quality experienced players to speed up the rebuilding process. If you were able to pay say only 80% of the cap then that's something like $1.4m up your sleeve to chase after uncontracted players or otherwise pump into better recruiting and development resources and personnel so you hit the mark with most of your picks from the very beginning of your rebuild.
-
This 92.5% minimum should be abolished. It hurts clubs who are rebuilding from scratch as it forces you to overpay players on your list to reach the minimum whereas at a stronger club that player would receive less. It was only introduced to prevent Fitzroy hanging on to survival by paying something like only 10% while getting thrashed onfield by 150 points every week. It isn't needed anymore. Abolishing the minimum would also give a club greater flexibility to chase after a number of quality experienced players to speed up the rebuilding process. If you were able to pay say only 80% of the cap then that's something like $1.4m up your sleeve to chase after uncontracted players or otherwise pump into better recruiting and development resources and personnel so you hit the mark with most of your picks from the very beginning of your rebuild.
It's the price we pay for collective bargaining. It protects the player's income level over the whole competition and the alternative is free agency - not a good thing when you are trying to keep the competition even for all. If you think Victorian clubs struggle with unfair stadium deals and extra competition for the corporate dollar now, just bring in free agency and watch the interstate clubs strangle the competition to death.
-
THey failed to mention point 9
point 9....identify who at the club that is hopeless at their job and release them to Richmond so they can stuff up a different club.
-
I just hate the way most footy pundits these days refer to a group of players as "the list"! Sorry, ill get off my soap box now..........
-
This 92.5% minimum should be abolished. It hurts clubs who are rebuilding from scratch as it forces you to overpay players on your list to reach the minimum whereas at a stronger club that player would receive less. It was only introduced to prevent Fitzroy hanging on to survival by paying something like only 10% while getting thrashed onfield by 150 points every week. It isn't needed anymore. Abolishing the minimum would also give a club greater flexibility to chase after a number of quality experienced players to speed up the rebuilding process. If you were able to pay say only 80% of the cap then that's something like $1.4m up your sleeve to chase after uncontracted players or otherwise pump into better recruiting and development resources and personnel so you hit the mark with most of your picks from the very beginning of your rebuild.
It's the price we pay for collective bargaining. It protects the player's income level over the whole competition and the alternative is free agency - not a good thing when you are trying to keep the competition even for all. If you think Victorian clubs struggle with unfair stadium deals and extra competition for the corporate dollar now, just bring in free agency and watch the interstate clubs strangle the competition to death.
I don't disagree with with Stripes about free agency :help. I'm just concerned at the end of year if we have a number of retirements and cuts amongst our older players then we could dip below the 92.5% minimum and may be in the same position as Melbourne with us needing to either pay the remaining players more whether they deserve a salary increase or not as well as needing front load new contracts (such a Lids' new deal).